Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 29
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884.] WELLS V. LITTLEFIELD. 29
Argument for the relator.
Geo. W. Littlefield sued Wells for cattle and procured their seizure
under writ of sequestration. Littlefield replevied the property. On
the trial judgment was rendered for plaintiff for the property,
which on appeal was reversed on June 5, 1883, and the cause remanded,
with directions to the court below to enter such judgment
in favor of the then appellant, Wells, as under the law announced
in the opinion he was entitled to on the former trial, and to allow
him such recovery as he had a right to in the state of the record
below had the decision there been in his favor upon the trial of the
right to the property in controversy. Thereafter, in the court
below, on December 8, 1883, judgment was rendered in obedience
to the mandate and opinion, but was afterwards, on motion of
Littlefield, set aside, on a showing by him of newly-discovered evidence.
Wells filed thereafter his motion in the district court asking
that judgment be again entered in accordance with the mandate
and opinion of the supreme court, which was overruled. Application
was then made to the supreme court for a writ of mandamus
to compel the Hon. W. A. Blackburn, the district judge, to obey the
mandate of the supreme court.
It is regretted that the return of the district judge to the writ is
not found among the papers of the cause, nor can it be found. Its
character, however, may be plainly inferred from the opinion.
Mathews ct WIilkes, for relator, on the power of the supreme
court to reverse a cause, with directions as to what judgment should
be entered below, cited: Peters v. Caton, 6 Tex., 559; Wood v.
Wheeler, 7 Tex., 13, and 9 Tex., 127; Chambers v. Lodges, 3 Tex.,
On the duty of the district court to obey implicitly the mandate,
they cited: Wood v. Wheeler, 9 Tex., 127; Lowell v. Ball, Hutchings
& Co., vol. 1, No. 15 of Tex. L. Rev.; Gilston v. Codwise, 1
Johns. Chan. Rep., 194 and 196; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet.,
491; Chambers i. Hodges, 3 Tex., 517; N. C. R. R. Co. v. Swepson,
73 N. C., 316; Henderson v. Winchester, 31 Miss. (2 George), 294;
Williams v. Saunders, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.), 82; Lord v, Ellis, 11 Ia.,
170; Pomeroy v. Parmlee, 10 Ia., 154; Brown a. Crow, Hardin
(Ky.), 447; Cox v. Thomas, 11 La., 367; Lovelace v. Taylor, 6 Robinson
(La.), 92; McGregor v. Buell, 1 Keyes, 157, and 17 Abb. Prac.,
34; lIurck v. Erskine, 50 Mo., 118; Selden v. Yermilya, 3 Sandf.,
On their right to a mandamus they cited: High on Ex. Remedies,
secs. 230 and 255; Johnston v. Glasscock, 2 Ala., 522 and 523; State
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/51/: accessed June 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .