Lively v. Bristow

12 Tex. 60
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1854·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Lipscomb, J.

The appellant filed his petition for an injunction, on the 5th October, 1853, praying an injunction to restrain an execution issued against him, on a judgment obtained by Bristow, the appellee, in a Justice’s Court, on the 5th February, 1853. He alleges as a reason why he had not sought his remedy sooner, that he was deceived by the false pretences of the appellee, promising that he would not run an execution on his judgment, and that be could have avoided the judgment and shown that he was not entitled, but for such promises. The appellee answered upon oath with a full denial of all the charges against him. ' The injunction was dissolved, and the petition dismissed. We have no doubt that the injunction was properly dissolved, on the answer. If the appellant had believed that he could sustain his petition on a final hearing, he should have asked the Court to continue his petition as an original, for a final trial on the evidence. It does not appear that he made this application, and, the presumption is that he declined so doing. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Lively v. Bristow, 12 Tex. 60 (Tex. 1854).

12 Tex. 60 (Lively v. Bristow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Love v. Powell
2 S.W. 456 (Texas Supreme Court, 1886)
Washington County v. Schulz
63 Tex. 32 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)
Dixon v. Zadek
59 Tex. 529 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Hale v. McComas
59 Tex. 484 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Daugherty v. Gibbs & Carter
2 Posey 255 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1880)
Kelley v. Whitmore
41 Tex. 647 (Texas Supreme Court, 1874)
Herron v. De Bard
28 Tex. 602 (Texas Supreme Court, 1866)
Pryor v. Emerson
22 Tex. 162 (Texas Supreme Court, 1858)