Case ID: tex_9/html/0064-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hebiphill, Cii. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wood and Wife v. Wheeler.
    (Note 31.)
    The decree of the Supreme Court becomes to the inferior court the law of the particular ease, and the latter maybe by peremptory writs compelled to carry it into execution; ic cannot bo varied nor examined for any other purpose than execution, and to settle so much as has been remanded.
    Nora 81. — Same case, 7 TÍ, 13; 11T., 122.
    Appeal from Washington. The, facts will be found in the report of the same case in the seventh volume of these reports. The controversy was about a homestead under the act of 1830, and on the former occasion the cause was remanded with a decree giving- specific instructions to the court below in respect to the rights of the parties in the particular case. In the court below the appellant proposed to file now pleas controverting facts which were either, expressly or impliedly established on the former appeal, the fact of the indebtedness, &c. This lie was not permitted to do, and the court went on to carry into effect the decree of the Supreme Court.
    
      J. Sayles, for appellant.
    
      J. Willie, for appellee.
   Hebiphill, Cii. J.

By the decree on the former appeal the widow of the deceased and her child were to have the benefit of the lot or its value and five hundred dollars out of the value of the improvements, the excess of the value of the said improvements being subjected to the payment of debts contracted anterior to the 16th February, 1S46.

The attempt in this proceeding is in effect to reverse this decree, and to require the creditor in whose favor it was rendered to relinquish the claim thus legally established to payment out of this special fund, and throw him upon the general assets of an estate thus rendered hopelessly and deeply insolvent for satisfaction.

The court very properly refused to countenance a proposition so utterly without the semblance of justice and so repugnant to the firmly-fixed principles of law. For there is no rule hotter established than that whatever is before this court on an appeal and disposed of must he regarded as finally settled. The decree of this court becomes to the inferior court the law of the particular ease, and the latter is hound by the mandate of the former, and may he enforced by peremptory writs to carry it into execution. It cannot be varied or examined by the District Court for any other purpose than execution, nor can the court intermeddle witli it in any way except to settle so much as has been remauded. (12 Pet. R., 491, and cases cited; 1 Johns. Chan. R., 189; 3 Tex. R., 517.) Such was the view taken by the District Court of the extent and limitations on its powers. At least its action was in accordance with these rules, and there being no error in the judgment it is •ordered that the same be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.