Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Wright

Decision Date17 June 1895
Citation31 S.W. 613
PartiesTEXAS MEXICAN RY. CO. v. WRIGHT et al.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Action by J. A. Wright against Texas Mexican Railway Company. Plaintiff had judgment in the justice's court, and defendant petitioned the district court for an injunction to enjoin plaintiff and others from levying execution thereon. A temporary injunction was granted, but was afterwards dissolved on demurrer to the petition. Defendant appealed to the court of civil appeals, where the judgment was affirmed. 29 S. W. 1134. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Dodd & Mullally and J. O. Luby, for plaintiff in error. C. L. Coyner, S. H. Woods, and Geo. B. Hufford, for defendants in error.

BROWN, J.

The plaintiff in error presented its petition to the Honorable A. L. McLane, praying a writ of injunction against J. A. Wright, C. L. Coyner, and John Larcade, in which it was alleged, in substance, that on the 26th day of February, 1894, J. A. Wright, by his attorney, C. L. Coyner, in a suit before James F. Mount, a justice of the peace in Duval county, recovered a judgment against the petitioner for the sum of $100, and for $11.70, costs of court, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of judgment; that on the 17th day of March, 1894, Coyner, as attorney for Wright, procured James F. Mount to issue execution against petitioner, which was placed in the hands of defendant Larcade, acting as constable of precinct No. 1 of that county, and instructed the said constable to levy upon property of the petitioner; that on the 21st day of March, 1894, the constable aforesaid demanded of petitioner's agent in San Diego a levy upon property to make the said judgment, and that petitioner's agent pointed out a box car of the reasonable value of $300, which property the said constable refused to levy upon, but levied the execution upon certain lots described in the petition, being the depot grounds of petitioner's railroad, worth $1,000. It was alleged in the petition that, when the said Wright filed his suit before the justice of the peace, citation was issued, directing the sheriff or any constable of the said county to summon W. H. Vannort, agent of the Texas Mexican Railway Company at San Diego, Tex.; that petitioner never appeared, nor in any way answered to the said suit, but that, service having been made upon the said W. H. Vannort, said justice of the peace rendered judgment against the petitioner in the said suit, as before stated, which judgment, the petitioner alleged, was void, because the said justice of the peace had no jurisdiction to render the said judgment as aforesaid. The district judge granted the writ of injunction, which was issued as prayed for. The defendants appeared, and excepted to the said petition upon several grounds, of which the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Bernhard v. Idaho Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1912
    ... ... 93; Fuller v ... Townsley-Myrick Dry Goods Co., 58 Ark. 314, 24 S.W. 635; ... Texas-Mexican R. Co. v. Wright, 88 Tex. 346, 31 S.W ... 613, 31 L. R. A. 200; Holman v. Stowers ... ...
  • Mann v. Brown
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1918
    ...v. Dowe, 70 Tex. 1-5, 6 S. W. 790. See note 30 L. R. A. 702-706; Odom v. McMahan, 67 Tex. 292, 3 S. W. 286; Tex. Mex. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 88 Tex. 346, 31 S. W. 613, 31 L. R. A. 200; Frazier v. Coleman, 111 S. W. It has been uniformly held by all the courts of this state that the district cou......
  • Slaughter v. American Baptist Publication Society
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 19, 1912
    ...a writ of certiorari was available. Railway v. Wright, 29 S. W. 1134; Railway v. Ware, 74 Tex. 47, 11 S. W. 918; Railway v. Wright, 88 Tex. 346, 31 S. W. 613, 31 L. R. A. 200. As said by this court in the Wright Case herein cited: "An adequate remedy by means of a writ of certiorari was acc......
  • A. B. Richards Medicine Co. v. Dale
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 23, 1927
    ...he was not entitled to resort to injunction to avoid same. Railway v. Ware, 74 Tex. 47, 49, 11 S. W. 918; Railway v. Wright, 88 Tex. 346, 31 S. W. 613, 31 L. R. A. 200; Odom v. McMahan, 67 Tex. 292, 3 S. W. 286; Dodge v. Youngblood (Tex. Civ. App.) 202 S. W. 116; Southern Surety Company v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT