Ballard v. Rogers

1 Dallam 460
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1842
DocketNo. VII
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 Dallam 460 (Ballard v. Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ballard v. Rogers, 1 Dallam 460 (Tex. 1842).

Opinion

HEMPHILL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the decree of the District Court of Red River County. J. H. Rogers, one of the ap-pellees, had recovered judgment on a promissory note against the appellant, B. M. Ballard, and J. J. Ward, the other appellee in this case. On the rendition of the judgment, the appellant B. M. Ballard applied to the judge of the district court, sitting in chancery, for a writ of injunction to restrain the issuing of execution on said judgment; the prayer of complainant’s petition was granted; but on demurrer being filed by defendant, the same was sustained by the court, the injunction dissolved, and the complaint of petitioner dismissed. From this decree the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

Our deliberations and decision will be confined to the matters directly involved in the appeal. The duty is not imposed on us of laboring through the mass of improprieties and irregularities in which the proceedings, previous to the complainant’s bill in chancery, are involved. Were we disposed to censure, sufficient matter of reproof would be furnished from the record after the institution of the suit in equity. We waive, however, the reprehension which might properly be bestowed on some portion of the proceedings in this case, and limit ourselves to the discussion of the grounds of appeal.

The petition of the appellant, praying for a writ of injunction, has been attentively considered by this tribunal, and we are of opinion that the matters contained therein are not sufficient to authorize the issuing of the extraordinary writ of injunction. The petitioner does not allege that he was deprived of the opportunity of making his defense, or that his defense was of such a nature as to be inadmissible in the courts of common law. Nor does he allege or show any matter whatsoever which could possibly justify the court of chancery in interfering with the judgment of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.

We are of opinion, therefore, that there was no error in the decree of the district court sustaining the demurrer to the appellant’s bill of complaint; and it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the court below in this case be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pearson v. Black
106 S.W.2d 787 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Elder v. Highsmith
10 S.W.2d 736 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Gillis v. Rosenheimer
64 Tex. 243 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Dallam 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-rogers-tex-1842.