Willis v. Gordon

22 Tex. 241
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 22 Tex. 241 (Willis v. Gordon) 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
Willis v. Gordon, 22 Tex. 241 (Tex. 1858).

Opinion

Roberts, J.

Plaintiff in error complains that, having sustained his injunction, as to the judgments in the Justice’s Court, on account of the want of service of process, it was error in the District Court to render judgment on the notes set up in defendant’s answer, as the notes upon which the justice’s judgments were rendered.

The court acted correctly, on the principle well recognized in courts of equity, that having acquired jurisdiction of the cause, the full merits of the controversy, as presented by either party, would be adjudicated. This was decided in a similar case at this term. (Bourke v. Vanderlip’s Ex’rs et al., supra, 221.) [244]*244The notes were fully set out in the answer, and alleged to he the notes upon which the judgments were rendered, thereby correcting the clerical mistake made by the justiee in the date of the notes. And the cause being submitted to the judge, he did not err in concluding that they were the same notes, the only variance being, that the notes bore date on the 19th of October, 1855, which the justice mistook for the 17th.

Had the plaintiff tendered the money really due on the notes, before suing out his injunction, he would have been entitled to recover the costs of the District Court, as well as those of the Justice’s Court. Hot having done so, he has no right to complain that he was relieved only of the costs of the Justice’s Court. Judgment affirmed, with damages.

Judgment' affirmed.

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

Related

Northrup v. O'BRIEN
474 S.W.2d 614 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
State Ex Rel. Dishman v. Gary
359 S.W.2d 456 (Texas Supreme Court, 1962)
Smith v. Givens
97 S.W.2d 532 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Martin v. King
23 S.W.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Dodson v. Montes
276 S.W. 749 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Minor v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
267 S.W. 1020 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Houston Rice Milling Co. v. Hankamer
97 S.W. 119 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1906)
Patton v. Cox
77 S.W. 1025 (Texas Supreme Court, 1904)
Ablowich v. Greenville Natl. Bank.
67 S.W. 79 (Texas Supreme Court, 1902)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Haynes
18 S.W. 605 (Texas Supreme Court, 1891)
Carter v. Hubbard
15 S.W. 392 (Texas Supreme Court, 1891)
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Ware
11 S.W. 918 (Texas Supreme Court, 1889)
Seymour v. Hill
3 S.W. 313 (Texas Supreme Court, 1887)
Hale v. McComas
59 Tex. 484 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Masterson v. Ashcom
54 Tex. 324 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)
J. F. Smith & Bro. v. Woods
1 White & W. 372 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1878)
Witt v. Kaufman & Kleaver
25 Tex. 384 (Texas Supreme Court, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Tex. 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-gordon-tex-1858.