Stein v. Frieberg, Klein & Co.
| Decision Date | 22 May 1885 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5543. |
| Citation | 64 Tex. 271 |
| Parties | I. K. STEIN v. FRIEBERG, KLEIN & CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Uvalde. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas M. Paschal.
Frieberg, Klein & Co., on the 23d day of June, A. D. 1884, obtained judgment by default against the appellant in a justice court of Uvalde county, in a suit wherein they were plaintiffs, for the sum of $64.75 debt, with $1.30 interest, together with costs. Execution under the judgment was levied on one gray mare, the property of the appellant, of the alleged value of $150.
Stein, on the 21st July, 1884, presented his petition to the district judge, praying for a writ of injunction to restrain the appellees from selling the mare, upon the ground that he was a married man; that the mare so levied upon was one of two horses only owned by him, and at the time of said levy he notified the constable (one of the appellees) that he claimed the mare as property exempt from forced sale under the constitution and laws of the state, and that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury unless the said writ was granted.
The writ of injunction was granted and bond executed.
On exceptions filed the suit was dismissed, it appears, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction.
Baker, Archer & Clark, for appellant, cited: Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex., 205.
No briefs for appellee have reached the reporter.
The petition for injunction sets forth facts which, if true, show that the property levied on was exempt from execution by the laws of our state. R. S., art. 2335.
It asked that the writ of injunction be issued by the district court to prevent a sale of the property so illegally seized under execution. The judge granted a temporary writ, but upon demurrer dismissed the cause, because, as the judge held, the court had not jurisdiction to finally hear and determine it.
If the court in so holding meant to decide that it could not take jurisdiction of the suit because the amount in controversy was too small to give jurisdiction to the district court, then its decision is directly contrary to the ruling of this court in The County of Anderson v. Kennedy, 58 Tex., 616, and other cases which have followed that decision. It was there held that district courts have the power to issue writs of injunction in cases in which a court of chancery, under the settled rules of equity, would have power to issue them; and this without reference to the amount in controversy, under the express power given in the constitution.
This being a proper case for the interposition of a court of equity to prevent a sale of property under execution, which the law had especially exempted from forced sale, there was no doubt under the decision cited but that the district court had power to issue the injunction regardless of the amount involved. See Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex., 205.
The district court having acquired jurisdiction by reason of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dallas v. Wright
...rules of equity. Anderson County v. Kennedy, 58 Tex. 616; Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205; Day Co. v. Chambers, 62 Tex. 190; Stein v. Frieberg, 64 Tex. 271. It is elementary that the statute (article 1219) prescribing a statutory method of reviewing assessments of the character before us sho......
-
Automobile Finance Co. v. Bryan
...S. W. 714; Chambers et al. v. Cannon, 62 Tex. 293." Cox v. Sinclair Gulf Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 200. See, also, Stein v. Frieberg et al., 64 Tex. 271; Stewart v. Patterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 769; Geary v. Word (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. The case has not yet been determin......
-
Callaghan v. Tobin
...irrespective of the subject and amount involved. County of Anderson v. Kennedy, 58 Tex. 616; Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205; Stein v. Frieberg, 64 Tex. 271. In the first-named case the Supreme Court said of section 8, art. 5, of the Constitution of 1876, which defined the jurisdiction of di......
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Blankenbeckler
...430; Railway Co. v. King, 80 Tex. 681, 16 S. W. 641; Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205; Railway Co. v. Dowe, 70 Tex. 3, 6 S. W. 790; Stein v. Frieberg, 64 Tex. 271. It may be that the county court, under a similar clause in section 16 of article 5, has also jurisdiction to grant this writ. Bro......