Ahrens v. Giesecke
Ahrens v. Giesecke
Opinion of the Court
In this case it is alleged that tlie District Court erred in quashing and dismissing the certiorari, and affirming the judgment of the justice of the peace.
In the case of O’Brien v. Dunn (5 Tex. R., 571) tlie course of proceeding in the District Court upon a ease being brought before it by a writ of certiorari from a Justice’s Court was distinctly and clearly defined. If the petition shows no sufficient ground, nothing of which the petitioner could justly complain, it ought, on the motion of the adverse party at the first term, to be dismissed; but if there be a sufficient ground for its issuance apparent on its face it will be retained and set down for trial de novo on its merits.
The petitioner in this case alleges in his petition that he did not owe
There is another error presented that would have made it our duty to reverse the judgment, even if there liad been no sufficient ground shown for the issuance of the certiorari and it had been properly dismissed. The court below, after quashing- and dismissing the certiorari, proceeded to affirm the judgment of the justice of the peace. This it liad no right to do. All that could be done in such case would have been to have awarded a procedendo to the justice of the peace to proceed to have his judgment executed. For the reasons given, the judgment, of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to try the case anew upon the merits.
Beversed and remanded.
Reference
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published