McNeill v. Hallmark

Texas Supreme Court December 15, 1866

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

Donley

Opinion of the Court

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.

*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.

Reference

Full Case Name: David L. McNeill v. John C. Hallmark
Cited By: 12 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: A judgment of a justice of the peace for a sum within his jurisdiction, and after service of citation on the defendant, is merely erroneous and not void, although rendered on a promissory note which was not due when the suit was commenced, and although rendered before the expiration of five days after the service of citation upon the defendants, and although the plaintiff in the judgment answered that the judgment was void, and he wished it to he treated as a nullity. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 1187, 1189, Notes 442, 182.) The remedy of the defendant in such case is by certiorari to the district court, and an injunction will not lie. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 468, Note 331, and Art. 3931, Note 924.)