Case ID: sw_251/html/0306-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HODGES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEAGLE et ux. v. KAW PAVING CO. et al.
    (No. 2732.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    April 25, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied May 3, 1923.)
    Costs &wkey;>279 — Injunction against sale for unpaid costs properly refused, though principal of judgment had been paid.
    Injunction will not be granted to restrain sale of real estate by virtue of an order of sale for the unpaid costs in a case in which judgment was recovered, and the principal debt for which it was rendered satisfied, where the evidence showed that the costs which had been adjudged against plaintiff had not been paid.
    Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; Silas Hare, Judge.
    Suit by E. W. Neagle and wife against the Kaw Paving Company and another. From judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    E. W. Neagle, of Sherman, for appellants.
    McReynolds & Hay, of Sherman, for appel-lees.
   HODGES, J.

This suit was instituted in the district court of Grayson county in July, 1922, by E. W. Neagle and wife, the appellants against the Kaw Paving Company and W. B. Craig, sheriff of Grayson county, to restrain the sale of certain real estate set out and described in the petition. The property referred to had been levied upon and advertised for sale by Craig as sheriff, by virtue of an order of sale issued out of the district court of Grayson county, upon a judgment in cause No. 27665, styled the Kaw Paving Company v. E. W. Neagle et al. The amount of the order of sale was for $42.40, which was the unpaid costs incurred in that case. The grounds upon which the injunction was sought was that the former judgment had been fully satisfied. The evidence showed that the principal debt for which the judgment was rendered had been paid, but that the costs which had been adjudged against the appellant had not been paid.

The court therefore properly refused to grant the injunction, and the judgment will be affirmed. 
      &wkey;?For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes