TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Godfrey v. Lackey

K. M. Godfrey Et Al. v. J. L. Lackey Et Al.

Godfrey v. Lackey, 129 S.W. 1145 (Tex. App. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 7, 1910
Judges
Speer
Citations
129 S.W. 114561 Tex. Civ. App. 441910 Tex. App. LEXIS 684
Headnotes
Injunction — Jurisdiction. Even if a district judge has the power to issue a writ of injunction restraining the enforcement of a judgment rendered by a County Court, the writ should be made returnable to and tried in the court which rendered the judgment. The District Court has no jurisdiction to finally hear and determine the controversy.
Summary
Error from the District Court of Collingsworth County. Tried below before Hon. S. P. Huff.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Speer

SPEER, Associate Justice.

— This is a writ of error proceeding to revise the judgment of the District Court of Collingsworth County dissolving a temporary writ of injunction theretofore granted by the district judge in vacation, restraining the enforcement of a judgment rendered by the County Court of Collingsworth County, on the ground of the nullity of such judgment.

We are not at liberty to discuss the questions raised in the briefs going to the merits of the case, since it appears the District Court had no jurisdiction to finally hear and determine thé controversy. Article 2996, Sayles’ Texas Civil Statutes, declares that: “Writs of injunction granted to stay proceedings in a suit or execution on a judgment, shall be returnable to and tried in the court where suck suit is Lending or such judgment was rendered.” So that, if it be conceded that the District Court had the power in the first place to issue the writ, clearly it should have been returnable to and tried in the County Court of Collingsworth County. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Butler, 52 Texas Civ. App., 323 ( 114 S. W., 671 ), 102 Texas, 322 . The order of the district judge in dissolving the injunction, whether right or wrong on the merits, is, therefore, vacated because of the *45 want of jurisdiction in the District Court to hear and determine the matter. Judgment reversed.

Reversed and■ remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1915: 11916: 11920: 11922: 11923: 11924: 11925: 11930: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Murph v. Bass276 S.W. 767 (Tex. App. 1925)
  2. Thallman v. Buckholts State Bank181 S.W. 791 (Tex. App. 1915)
  3. Kelley v. Stubblefield26 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App. 1930)
  4. Marshall v. Spiller184 S.W. 285 (Tex. App. 1916)
  5. Oliver v. Swift & Co.220 S.W. 234 (Tex. App. 1920)
  6. Warren v. Pace253 S.W. 632 (Tex. App. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Kelley v. Stubblefield26 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App. 1930)
  2. Murph v. Bass276 S.W. 767 (Tex. App. 1925)
  3. Harris v. Davis267 S.W. 1044 (Tex. App. 1924)
  4. Warren v. Pace253 S.W. 632 (Tex. App. 1923)
  5. Leslie v. Leslie239 S.W. 633 (Tex. App. 1922)
  6. Oliver v. Swift & Co.220 S.W. 234 (Tex. App. 1920)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Tex. & Pac. Ry. v. Butler, 114 S.W. 671 (Tex. App. 1908) 12
Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Butler, 116 S.W. 360 (Tex. 1909) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list