Henderson v. Morrill

12 Tex. 1
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 12 Tex. 1 (Henderson v. Morrill) 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
Henderson v. Morrill, 12 Tex. 1 (Tex. 1854).

Opinion

Hemphill, Ch. J.

The appellant obtained an injunction to restrain the Sheriff from selling a tract of land, under a judgment in favor of Amos, Morrill (one of the appellees) against John C. Carter and Mary A. Carter, in which said land was decreed to be sold in satisfaction of said judgment, and under an order of sale, directing the said land to be sold in conformity with said decree.

On demurrer to the petition, the injunction was dissolved, the petition dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff avers that he is the rightful owner of the land; but he does not show by what title he claims, or that the Carters had no interest in the land. He alleges no facts to show that the judgment was obtained by fraud and collusion between Morrill and the Carters, and in relation to lands which could not be legally subjected to the satisfaction of such judgment. He does not aver that he is in possession, or that he will suffer any loss or damage by the sale. His right to the land cannot be injuriously affected by a judgment between third parties, or any proceedings to enforce said judgment.

The decree complained of was entered in the exercise of a competent jurisdiction, and cannot be collaterally attacked, „or enjoined, on vague allegations of rights in tjjird parties, and of fraud against those rights ; and especially where these rights cannot be seriously prejudiced, whether the judgment be rendered with or without fraud.

The plaintiff does not aver his ignorance of the pendency [4]*4of the suit, the execution of which he now seeks to enjoin. If he had such knowledge, and had any well founded apprehension of danger to his rights, he should have intervened during the proceedings, and not after the decree.

The whole showing of the plaintiff' is vague and insufficient; and the demurrer was rightly sustained. (3 Tex. E. 152)

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Magnolia Pipeline Co. v. McCarter
52 S.W.2d 663 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Harding v. Pearson
48 S.W.2d 964 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1932)
Stolte v. Karren
191 S.W. 600 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Latham Company v. Shelton
122 S.W. 941 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Lothrop v. Rossner
10 P.R. 87 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1906)
Chamberlain v. Baker
67 S.W. 532 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)
Kennard v. Mabry
14 S.W. 272 (Texas Supreme Court, 1890)
Mann v. Wallis, Landes & Co.
12 S.W. 1123 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1890)
Spencer v. Rosenthall
58 Tex. 4 (Texas Supreme Court, 1882)
Ryburn v. Getzendaner
1 Posey 349 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1880)
Whitman v. J. P. Willis & Bro.
51 Tex. 421 (Texas Supreme Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Tex. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-morrill-tex-1854.