North v. Swing

24 Tex. 193
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1859·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Wheeler, C. J.

As more than a year had elapsed from the rendition of the judgment, and no execution had issued thereon, the judgment had lost its lien, and become dormant. It required to be revived, in order to authorize the issuance of execution. As this was not done, the execution in question was unauthorized, and was therefore rightly enjoined. This will not prevent the plaintiffs in execution, from proceeding to revive their judgment, and have execution. If, in their answer, they had sought a revival of the judgment, it might, perhaps, have been so adjudged in this ease. (Cyrus v. Hicks, 20 Texas Rep. 483.) But, upon the case, as presented, there is no error in the judgment, and it is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

North v. Swing, 24 Tex. 193 (Tex. 1859).

24 Tex. 193 (North v. Swing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cotten v. Stanford
147 S.W.2d 930 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Darlington v. Allison
12 S.W.2d 839 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Pardue v. James
12 S.W. 1 (Texas Supreme Court, 1889)
Seymour v. Hill
3 S.W. 313 (Texas Supreme Court, 1887)
Stark v. Carroll
1 S.W. 188 (Texas Supreme Court, 1886)
Gabel v. McMahan
1 White & W. 391 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1879)
Pait v. McCutchen
43 Tex. 291 (Texas Supreme Court, 1875)