McNeill v. Hallmark

28 Tex. 157
Texas Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1866·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Donley, J.

—The matter in controversy in this case is less than $100. The issuing of the writ and the service thereof on the defendant gave the justice of the peace, who •tried the cause, jurisdiction.

[159] It is believed that the judgment of the justice was erroneous. The appellant might have corrected this error by certiorari from the District Court.

That an injunction was not the remedy, is believed to have been settled by this court in the case of Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex., 5; Smith v. Ryan, 20 Id., 664; Rotzein v. Cox, 22 Tex., 65. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

McNeill v. Hallmark, 28 Tex. 157 (Tex. 1866).

28 Tex. 157 (McNeill v. Hallmark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mann v. Brown
201 S.W. 438 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Young v. City of Colorado
174 S.W. 986 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Kerr v. Murphy
69 L.R.A. 499 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)
Ex parte Howard-Harrison Iron Co.
119 Ala. 484 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Dowe
6 S.W. 790 (Texas Supreme Court, 1888)
McAnear v. Epperson
54 Tex. 220 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)
Williams v. Ball
52 Tex. 603 (Texas Supreme Court, 1879)
Pait v. McCutchen
43 Tex. 291 (Texas Supreme Court, 1875)
Garner v. Smith
40 Tex. 505 (Texas Supreme Court, 1874)
Long v. Smith
39 Tex. 160 (Texas Supreme Court, 1873)