*1 (Tex. 201 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER 43S finding; that & M. Beach insufficient to sustain said v. North which was a “In the case Turner damages by jury Co., 600, for sum of is suit allowed as R. W. 34 Cal. jury grossly expulsion expulsion damages company was against excessive and that shows says: improper cars, and some controlled some motive 'If her from the conductor, evidence, or that motive resulted from malice indig only injury plaintiff accompanied by personal was is that evidence violence was ejected exceeding point responsible nity, a not for such from train at defendant’s is the conductor alone damages may Tu- this three miles from station she be entitled early damage resulting car, April beyond cause, on in the from lane an afternoon the actual evening, clear, dark; unless, was expulsion and before that as before her from the ill, raining, expressly tacitly partic company re- stated, ipated conductor. suit was not and he suffered no or sulting by reason of the walk that he was there- conduct in the malice violent by compelled says: take; plaintiff Story a is a that ‘If this were Justice might years old, wrongdoers, original it man 67 or and was physically them-, strong healthy walking; yet further, proper go that and used to be and visit having plaintiff protest by damages, shape exemplary reason in the injured put physically belongs punishment at mis been off to such lawless and was which all; than those that one on the train knew no be conduct. considered ejected him; privateer, that with who were a suit owners is upon policy, passengers train, has, other than motives of on said those from whom and, party, strangers him, responsibility the of his where- were for the conduct devolved yet, fore, in appears finding by them, employed is excessive crew officers and from ly quate indemnity evidence, they unsupported service, scarce amount can nature support is verdict evidence insufficient an ade ever be able to secure to themselves They for that in amount.” in case loss. are transaction, having demerit nocent of the neither directed of this opinion a correct The court that when par it, nor nor countenanced charge given by on another the lower court degree. ticipated slightest in it Under perhaps they com- the result opinion circumstances, are that we injuries repair plained assignment are all the real bound exces- as to personal wrongs but libellants; sustained be reached. siveness they the extent of vindic are not bound to judg- errors, * * * reason the above damages.’ there tive is company conductor than to the owners of a act believed principle this cause remanded. to a railroad ment is reversed and would attach which greater liability for the acts of vessel, for the master.” any reported 7616.) (No. case We are not able to-find in MANN v. et al. BROWN contrary any that an- in Texas doctrine to (Court Texas. Galveston. Rehearing, above, On Motion for Jan. 1918. nounced nor are able front we 21, 1918.) Feb. acquainted, decision are referred, to which we have been Rehearing. Motion for holding retention the railroad Judgment n =^>17(11) Support 1. —Process company such cases as —Nonresidents—Attachment. Attaching property nonresident’s and serv- above, stronger cases, even would Sayles’ ing process him Ann. under Vernon’s alleged wrong. abe ratification of the art. confers Civ. St. 1914_, C., Ry. Reed, F. C. & Co. satisfy plaintiff’s selling the attach- demand personal judg- property, Rep. but to enter a ed 80 Tex. 749, 26 Am. St. ment. there action a railroad <®=j7— 2. Execution Nonresident Defend- stream, company running poill(uting ants. land; through plaintiff’s appearing Where a nonresident’s has been at- yardmaster process defendant’s at different times tached served under Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. art. the result- animals threw carcasses of dead into ing lien and sale is unaffected the fact that bridge point stream from its at a about was rendered default. . feet house. Plaintiff com Judgment Support ®=>17(11) —Process plained person charge —Nonresidents—Validity. of defend judgment against A Houston, requested nonresident secured ants office at him by attaching property within the state and serv- removed, nothing to have the carcasses ing process under Vernon’s Ann. Civ- was done in the matter. There was no evi 1914, art. St. invalid because the person complained defendant’s, dence that general to was a notice or citation did been attached. Held, officer of defendant. < nn =>480(3) Injunction — — 4. Courts Justice adoption was not such a ratification Selling Exempt Property. Court — wrongful agents acts of its enjoin A district court has no as would render liable in ex therefor pursuant of a the sale nonresident’s judgment upon damages. ground emplary a valid from execution. going length, Without into the matter at op Judg- — <§=»130 5. Justices the Peace opinion assignments we are of these ments— OONCLUSIVENESS. sustained, be must the instruction special courts have a Justice’s and exclu- complained assignment inof Constitution, the second of sive and' except courts cannot review other upon appeal, and, judgments trials therein given. error should allowed, where no assignment The third of error is as fol- therein are conclusive. lows: Appieal Court, from District jury’s question “The answer to No. County; Prince, Judge. supported by evidence, John S. evidence is Key-Numbered Digests topic other cases see same in all KEY-NUMBER and Indexes ©=»Eor *2 Tex.) v MANN BROWN appealed could E. Mann G. from ren- Petition for an dered him. A. others. From D. Brown and day August, 1917, Special temporary 18th of dissolving of writ order Judge Appeal granted tion, petitioner appeals. temporary A. dis- G. Greenwood injunction, restraining prop- the sale of said missed. erty disposition cause, final until of the un- appellant. Palestine, Petty, for W. R. of less sooner modified or dissolved appellees. Hughes, Palestine, for of O. day September, 1917, court. On the 5th of appellees Bryan presented Brown and their regular Prince, motion judge Hon. J. S. LANE, from or- is an J. This court, praying of said for a dissolu- judi- judge regular of the der of cial district of Third temporary injunction. tion of said On the Texas, dissolving temporary day September, regular 18th of restraining injunction, A. D. Brown writ of judge granted said motion and dissolved Bryan selling prop- certain R. D. from and erty temporary injunction theretofore issued. issued-by appellant, of theretofore dissolving From this action oí court in judge Greenwood, special lion. A. G. district said Third of appealed. said E. Mann has county, Anderson within court of only description property The of the in- judicial district. appellant’s pe- volved in the suit is found in petition injunction, among The injunction, tition for is and is that it three day July, things, alleges 10th on the of piano. of suites Tire bedroom furniture one Bryan 1017, appellee D. suit in the R. filed reference to value is to be found justice precinct No. 1 of court of petition, in said and is effect that it is pray- county ing appellant, G. B. “of far value of the amount of excess sum of due judgment of §64 of and costs suit.” appellant premises Bryan of D. for rent R. certain By article Vernon’s of a foreclosure land- and for his given ju- Statutes court is naming any up- property lien, lord’s on without suits, complaints, pleas risdiction of all sought; which was said foreclosure whatever, regard distinction upon Bryan, at the time said suit was filed equity, between law and when the matter in procured affidavit, of the issuance of a writ controversy at shall be valued or amounts to placed the same the hands §500, interest, exclusive of article constable, Brown, A. of D. certain to be levied given jurisdiction of all causes of ac- kitchen be- household and furniture juris- remedy tion whatever for which a longing pi- included provided by diction is law or the Consti- .furniture; ano and of bedroom three sets however, jurisdiction, tution. It has no levy that said said was Brown jurisdic- causes of action which exclusive that said furniture was said Brown seized tion has conferred possession taken his under and writ; into county court. 1763 the article time said suit filed that at the was civ-, given court is exclusive over levy and at issuance time of the controversy il cases when the matter attachment, ap- since, and at times exceed shall not §200 value exceed pellant G. E. Mann and is was still. a non- §500, exclusive of interest. Texas; resident state of that he was stated, property As of the value at all such head of a man times married present is not shown consisting family, a wife pleadings party. either record children, and that said furniture at the was affirmatively to this court sent otherwise show the does or so levy time of such seizure of such value payment the law from forced sale to show that debts; July, his that on the 30th taken, which this over the absence of such had personal judgment 1917, a subject-matter of the suit. appellee Bryan court in favor of showing will this court against appellant for sum §64 and for of the entertain ordering foreclosure, the issuance of purpose brought In for the sole a suit an order of sale said furniture for the specific property, preventing the sale payment judgment; of said thereafter the amount determines value of in placed an order of sale issued and jurisdic- controversy determining the Brown, the hands of Constable who is court, and value should be tion of the threatening property thereunder; to sell said Rochelle, Drug alleged. Smith far value in excess judgment, amount broadly: proposition Stating more value; sell for more than one-fourth of its debt when the sued a lien to foreclose suits injunction prayed unless for be prescribed to minimum than the for is less irreparable injury. he will issued suffer He prop- jurisdiction, give erty upon the value alleged further notice sought to be fore- lien is which the not knowledge writ attachment had alleged, fails to closed been issued and levied jurisdiction. expiration til the time which he (Tes. 201 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER validity exemption prop- essential tlie of tlie “The averment erty from forced sale was sufficient invoke pleadings affirmatively such cases that regard- of the [district] show that court had less the element of value.” suhject-matter, and the Court *3 jurisdiction must notice the want of trial court whether of the carefully We have examined the decision objection the is' raised language referred to and the find that above parties Drug or not. Smith Co. v. quoted substantially language of Rochelle, supra; Walker Mercantile Supreme Court in decision. many others, It was also Raney Co., 317; S. 154 W. Marshall v. Stow case, in held that as in that Co., ers Furniture 167 W. Witt S. De equity district court in the exercise of its County Wischkemper, v. 95 Tex. jurisdiction powers has to restrain en- county judgment forcement of a court In the case cited said: last the court of the nullity, invalidity is a where the is afflrma- n “By section art. of Constitution tively record, disclosed void as well as jurisdiction state, county this of courts judgments of other inferior courts. held It is ‘They juris thus defined: shall have exclusive cited, in in diction all cases the case as well as an civil when the matter con troversy shall exceed in value and not ex $200 courts, broken of our that line decisions $500, interest, ceed exclusive of and concurrent jurisdiction court re- is without jurisdiction with the district court when judgment controversy an strain the enforcement of matter in $500 not exceed * * * interest; $1,000, exceed exclusive of appear inferior unless is made to county judge and the court or thereof shall have judgment that such void. sub- is also power injunction, mandamus, writs issue stantially that, case held in that while necessary and all writs to the enforcement of jurisdiction jurisdiction of said court.’ In the cases of law that to to issue settled State, Dean v. 88 Tex. W. [30 296 S. injunction county court the. value of an 185], Hanscom, W. and Johnson v. Tex. subject-matter be shown to exceed must 761], 321 [37 S. W. 38 S. W. this court $1,000, power county and not $200 to exceed held that the of the court to issue writs injunctions mandamus under the section of jurisdiction the courts have to issue quoted Constitution above was limited to cases it is not affirma- cases where in tively exceeding same which can exceeding $1,000. not $200 and The application val- shown applicable injunction, rule is to writs of county subject-matter bo issued courts exceeded $200 of the ue controversy where the matter in exceeds $200 holding being the not exceed Such $500. did $1,000 and does not exceed in value. In this Supreme Court, we must of our recede case, subject no value of the of the suit is al leged; injunction holding original opinion grace- application our therefore for the writ of bring does -the case within the superior fully bow to court. while Constitution, county terms of the and the court authority so, doing cited, 'of under jurisdiction injunc had no tion to issue the writ of upon that the district court must hold the facts stated.” jurisdiction 'County was without petition We conclude that injunction present the writ issue tion does not show a over which cause the case, because it is shown jurisdiction trial court had and therefore injunction appellant sought to restrain this no court has to determine judgment the enforcement and execution of a appeal. regu- apparently rendered lar court is dismissed. upon its face and void. In the deci- discussion, Phillips sion Chief Justice Rehearing. Motion for Supreme Court said: original opinion our we held that as this judgment “The of the was clear appeal is from an order of the district ly jus urged void. The counterclaim County dissolving court of Anderson a tem- give tice court was sufficient in amount to' appeal. This claim porary constituted theretofore issued out of subject-matter ju suit; and, having of the restraining piano, said court sale of one parties, both risdiction furniture, three suites bedroom other possessed authority judgment to render jurisdiction being complete alleged matter. the having was Its household kitchen furniture lawfully exercised, exempt property be the giving * * * void, however erroneous. piano, such furniture value apparent judge the district was without was not shown said district court to issue the on account alleged invalidity judgment.” of the subject-matter suit, this court had hence ap- present pass upon appellant’s The record case shows to this Bryan brought pellee jus- thereupon appeal. suit in R. dismissed the Since precinct original opinion appellant tice court ty 1No. Anderson coun- was filed against appellant, rehearing E. nonresi- filed his motion and insists state, upon holding to recover an account dent that missing in our said and in we erred dis- $64; that at the time said suit was filed Bryan Appellant sued out an and the same our attention now calls upon Court, Supreme furniture levied fact the case of cause; appellant Rea, was served Cotton 106 Tex. state of that: of said suit Alabama notice
Tex.)
MANN BROWN
v
er,
required by
the law
but we are unable
find
hold-
and form as
manner
ing
injunctions
that such
nonresi-
can be
to re-
notice
issued
state for such
of this
dents;
property alleged
strain the sale
ex-
to be
was called
that when said
empt,
parties
not,
after the
have had their
appeared
no de-
appellant
competent jurisdiction,
where,
pleaded
suit,
manner
nor in
fense
upon trial,
adjudged
exempt
such court had
on was
levied
subject
property to be
attachment sued
sale for the
from forced
inception
out in said court at the
suit
debts;
payment
of his
pres-
property,
and levied
as in the
in faVor
rendered in
suit
thereby
case,
creating
thereon;
ent
a lien
Bryan against appellant
for the sum
Mann
being
showing
pro-
of fraud in the
the attach-
for a foreclosure
curement of such
or that
the same
furniture;
that an or-
lien
the said
*4
ment
any
was for
void.
Rail-
reason
case of
is-
in due time-
was thereafter
of sale
der
way
cited,
Dowe,
v.Co.
above
the court said:
justice
for the sale of
court
of said
sued out
County
Kennedy
“In
judgment
Anderson
satisfy
[58
v.
Tex.
and
said
to
said furniture
622],
Stayton clearly explains
Justice
and lim
placed
in the hands
the same was
power
injunction
its the
proceedings.
court in
_
constable,
Brown,
for execution.
says:
A.
grant
grant
He
‘The Constitution
ing authority
injunction
process upon
a nonresident
to issue writs of
[1] Service of
equity powers
ed all the
conferred
chan
provisions
may,
of arti
state
cery
regard
in
courts
such cases without
to
1914,
Civil Statutes
cle
Vernon’s
amount;’
by
and these views were followed
judg
aof
the rendition
be had
authorize
to
Holt,
court in Alexander v.
59 Tex.
Day
Chambers,
rem, though
v.
to author