McNeill v. Hallmark

Texas Supreme Court

McNeill v. Hallmark

28 Tex. 157

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1866

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 28 Tex. 157 (McNeill v. Hallmark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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]*159It 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

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]*159It 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Tex. 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneill-v-hallmark-tex-1866.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack