Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Tex. 160

Long v. Smith

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1873

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1873-07-01

Appeals from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarland. These two cases, Nos. 735 and 736, grow out of the sainé subject matter and are in reality the same. In No. 735 suit was brought in the county court under the act of 1866, by D. 0. Smith, who alleges that he had been doing business under the name of D. C. Smith & Co., against W. C. Long, for an account.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1956

8 state decisions

20187318801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Walker, J.

¶1This was a proceeding by injunction to restrain the collection of a judgment rendered in the County Court of Washington county.

¶2The prayer of the petition was based upon the allegation that Long, the plaintiff, had appealed from the judgment of the County Court to the District Court, and that his appeal had been erroneously dismissed. The remedy by injunction is granted by courts of equity where the courts of law cannot give relief. Ho case of this kind was made out, and the injunction was improperly granted; if improperly granted, it was properly dissolved. If the plaintiff had suffered wrong in the County Court, he had his remedy by appeal, or certiorari. H he was aggrieved by the judgment of the District Court, he had his remedy by appeal to the Supreme Court. If he has neglected or misused his ordinary remedies he is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy, by injunction.

¶3It is by no means manifest to us that the appellant would be entitled to relief, even were the case retried upon its merits. There was certainly no error in permitting the intervenor Swearingen to recover judgment in *163his own name. (See Heard v. Lockett, 20 Texas, 162; Price v. Wiley, 19 Texas, 142.)

¶4The judgment of the District Court is -affirmed.

¶5Affirmed.

¶6Walton & Green and J. D. & D. C. Giddings, on motion for rehearing, cited Herndon v. Bremond, 17 Texas, 434; Spencer v. Kinnard, 12 Texas, 186; Kerr on Injunction, 4 and 6; Thompson v. Chareau, 7 Mart. La., N. S., 334; Smalley v. Taylor, 668, and Clamageran v. Bucks et als.. 4 Mart. La., 487; Bone v. Walters, 14 Texas, 566.

¶7Sales & Bassetts, for Swearingen, cited Windisch v. Gussett, 30 Texas, 744; Wallerath v. Kopp, 31 Texas, 359; Rotzein v. Cox, 22 Texas, 62; Smith v. Ryan, 20 Texas, 661; McNeill v. Halmarck, 28 Texas, 157; Robinson v. Sanders, 33 Texas, 774; Price v. Wiley, 19 Texas, 142; Heard v. Lockett, 20 Texas, 162; Eccles v. Hill, 13 Texas, 65; Chandler v. Fulton, 10 Texas, 2; Hancock v. Devine, 17 Texas, 369; Smith v. Cheatham, 12 Texas, 37; Mays v. Forbes, 9 Texas, 436.

/39/tex/160 · .json · Public domain