Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 286
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
286 JORDAN V. COBLEY. [Term of
Statement of the case.
Jones, and on the same day 'obtained a writ of garnishment
against the plaintiff, Jordan.
Jones, the defendant in the justice's court, failing to appear,
a judgment by default was rendered against him, on the 5th
day of March, 1870, for the anlount of the plaintiff's demand,
being $52.27, for which sum, with costs, execution was ordered
to issue. The judgment recites that Jordan having answered
that he had five bales of cotton in his possession, it was ordered
that the plaintiff, Corley, recover the amount of his judgment
from said Jordan, and all costs, out of the proceeds of the five
bales of cotton. The present suit was brought by Jordan to
enjoin the defendant, Corley, from collecting the judgment
rendered against him, Jordan, as garnishee, and for other purposes.
Appellant insists that the judgment rendered against him by
the justice of the peace is a nullity, because, as he alleges, he was
not indebted to Jones at the time he answered the garnishment,
but, on the contrary, J'ones was indebted to him at the end of
the year 1869. The plaintiff, in effect, denies the judgment as
rendered, and seeks to set it aside by contradicting its recitals,
without alleging fraud or any ground of equity against
the collection of the judgment. The application for injunction
was not made within twelve months after the judgment was
rendered; nearly two years had elapsed before the petition
was filed. His excuse for the delay is, that he did not know
that the judgment had been rendered against him until about
five days before the filing of his petition. It appears that he
was served with process, or he was present and answered to the
garnishment, and as the judgment shows, admitted that he had
in his possession the five bales of cotton, and having submitted
his defenses in a matter within the jurisdiction of the court,
he was bound to take notice of the proceedings and judgment
rendered in the case. The application for the injunction was
not made within, the time required by the statute, and no sufficient
reason was shown for the delay. (Pillow and others
against Thompson and others, 20 Texas, 206).
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
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 Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/294/: accessed March 21, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .