Hernandez v. Alamo Motor Co.

299 S.W. 272
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 22, 1927
DocketNo. 2089.
StatusPublished

This text of 299 S.W. 272 (Hernandez v. Alamo Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hernandez v. Alamo Motor Co., 299 S.W. 272 (Tex. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

Appellant brought this suit against the Alamo Motor Company and W. A. Simpson, constable, to enjoin the execution of a judgment by default for $146.15, in favor of said company against appellant. The validity of the judgment was attached upon the ground that appellant had not been served with citation in the suit. A temporary injunction was issued. Upon final hearing a general demurrer to the petition was sustained. Appellant declined to amend; thereupon the suit was dismissed.

No brief by appellant has been filed, but the action of the court upon the demurrer presents a question of fundamental error for which reason the appeal is disposed of upon its merits. Counsel for appellee has submitted an able brief in support of the judgment, which has been of great assistance in the disposition of the appeal.

The petition upon its face discloses that two weeks after the rendition of the judgment appellant became fully advised thereof. This shows that he might have availed himself of the legal remedy by certiorari to vacate the judgment complained of, and no excuse is shown for neglecting so to do. In such eases the settled rule in this state is that relief by injunction against the enforcement of the judgment will be denied. Railway Co. v. Ware, 74 Tex. 47, 11 S. W. 918; Railway Co. v. Wright, 88 Tex. 346, 31 S. W. 614, 31 L. R. A. 200; A. B. Richards Med. Co. v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 267 S. W. 1067; Southern Surety Co. v. Texas, etc. (Tex. Com. App.) 281 S. W. 1045; A. B. Richards Med. Co. v. Dale (Tex. Civ. App.) 294 S. W. 345; Thacher Med. Co. v. Trammell (Tex. Civ. App.) 279 S. W. 307.

The petition is probably fatally defective in other respects, as pointed out in appellees’ brief, but same need not be discussed, for the authorities cited are conclusive in support of the judgment sustaining the demurrer. •

Affirmed.

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

Related

A. B. Richards Medicine Co. v. Dale
294 S.W. 345 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Thacher Medicine Co. v. Trammell
279 S.W. 307 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
A. B. Richards Medicine Co. v. Johnson
267 S.W. 1067 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Texas-Mexican Railway Co. v. Wright
31 L.R.A. 200 (Texas Supreme Court, 1895)
Richardson v. Washington & Costley Bros.
31 S.W. 614 (Texas Supreme Court, 1895)
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Ware
11 S.W. 918 (Texas Supreme Court, 1889)
Southern Surety Co. v. Texas Oil Clearing House
281 S.W. 1045 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 S.W. 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-alamo-motor-co-texapp-1927.