Marshall v. Spiller

184 S.W. 285, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 236
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 8, 1916
DocketNo. 5641.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 184 S.W. 285 (Marshall v. Spiller) 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
Marshall v. Spiller, 184 S.W. 285, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 236 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

FLY, C. J.

Appellants brought this suit, alleging that appellee as sheriff of Menard county had levied on certain horses and cattle under an execution issued under a judgment against G. W. Marshall, husband of Ida S. Marshall; that the live stock was the separate property of said Ida S. Marshall, and an injunction was prayed for to restrain the sale of the horses and cattle. A temporary injunction was issued, no bond being required of appellants.

Appellee excepted to the petition on the ground that the cattle had been seized by virtue of an order of sale issued out of another county, and the court had no authority to enjoin the order of sale, and it was answered that a judgment was obtained in Tom Green county against G. W. Marshall foreclosing a mortgage on the stock of horses and cattle. The writ of injunction was issued by the county judge of Menard county, the same being made returnable to the county court of that county. He afterwards heard the case and dismissed it because no bond had been filed.

[1] The whole proceeding was null and void. The temporary writ of injunction should not have been granted without a bond being required. Downes v. Monroe, 42 Tex.307; Nicholson v. Campbell, 15 Tex.Civ. App. 317, 40 S. W. 167; Pierson v. Connellee, 145 S. W. 1039.

[2] If the temporary writ had been legally granted, it should have been made returnable to the county court of Tom Green county. Rev. Stats, art. 4653; Seligson v. Collins, 64 Tex. 315; Smith v. Morgan, 28 Tex. Civ.App. 245, 67 S. W. 919; Broocks v. Lee, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 604, 110 S. W. 756; Godfrey v. Lackey, 129 S. W. 1145; Brown v. Fleming, 178 S. W. 964; Thallman v. Buckholts State Bank, 181 S. W. 791, decided recently by this court, and not yet officially published.

All the proceedings are hereby annulled and set aside, and the cause is dismissed.

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

Related

Lancaster v. Lancaster
291 S.W.2d 303 (Texas Supreme Court, 1956)
Lancaster v. Lancaster
277 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Crittenden v. Heckman
185 S.W.2d 495 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Oak Downs, Inc. v. Schmid
95 S.W.2d 1040 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Griffith v. State ex rel. Ainsworth
210 S.W. 293 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Klaras v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. of London & Edinburgh
200 S.W. 584 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 S.W. 285, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-spiller-texapp-1916.