Martin v. Sykes

25 Tex. 197
Texas Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Roberts, J.

—The court below did not err in dissolving the injunction, and rendering judgment against the complainant and the sureties on her injunction bond. The judgment is erroneous as to the sureties, inasmuch as it is rendered for a much greater amount than the bond given • by them, as required by the judge. Of that error, however, they have not complained; and, therefore, there is no good ground presented for a reversal of the judgment against her, she being liable, without reference to the bond, for the amount of the original debt and damages thereon. (Hendrick v. Cannon, 5 Tex., 248.) The petition for injunction was fatally defective, in not stating intelligibly the nature of judgment rendered against her, the nature of her rights in the property affected by the levy of the execution, and the facts constituting the fraud in inducing her to accept service of process.

The judgment must be

Affirmed.

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

Martin v. Sykes, 25 Tex. 197 (Tex. 1860).

25 Tex. 197 (Martin v. Sykes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Johnson v. McMahan
40 S.W.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Corpus Christi Gas Co. v. City of Corpus Christi
46 F.2d 962 (Fifth Circuit, 1931)
Elder v. Highsmith
10 S.W.2d 736 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
San Jacinto Life Ins. Co. v. Brooks
274 S.W. 648 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Miller Surfacing Co. v. Bridgers
269 S.W. 838 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Craig
176 S.W. 827 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Weaver v. Emison
153 S.W. 923 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Keahey v. Bryant
134 S.W. 409 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)