Case Name: M. J. Martin v. William Sykes
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 197
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. J. Martin v. William Sykes.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 197–198

Head Matter:
M. J. Martin v. William Sykes.
Where the judgment on an injunction bond is greater than the bond itself, it is erroneous as to the sureties. But if complaint is not made of that error by them, there is no good ground for reversal of the judgment; the plaintiff in error being liable, without reference to the bond, for the original debt enjoined and damages thereon.
Where the petition for injunction does not distinctly allege the fraudulent acts by which a married woman was induced to acknowledge service and let judgment go by default, under which she permitted her homestead to be sold without asserting her claim, the petition was insufficient, and the injunction was rightly dissolved for want of equity in the bill.
Error , from Bexar. The case was tried before Hon. Edmund J. Davis, one of the district judges.
This is a suit by the plaintiff in error to enjoin a judgment and decree of sale in favor of defendant in error. Plaintiff in error brought suit against M. L. Menck, Geo. M. Martin, and M. J. Martin; service was accepted, and judgment obtained, with a decree of foreclosure of mortgage on a house and lot. An order of sale was issued, and the plaintiff in .error sued out an injunction to enjoin the judgment and the sale, alleging that the house and lot were her homestead, and that she had been fraudulently persuaded to accept service, and not to set up her claim to the homestead in the original suit. The defendant in error moved to dissolve the injunction for the want of equity in petition, which motion was sustained, and the petition was dismissed, and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in error and her sureties on the injunction-bond for $2,200, with ten per cent, damages. The injunction-bond is only for $800.
Wilcox Leigh, for plaintiff in error.
—1. The court erred in dissolving the injunction and dismissing the petition. The allegations of the petition and amended petition, to wit, that she had been prevented from setting up her defenses in the original suit by the fraud of the plaintiff, and that the house and lot is her homestead, clearly entitle her to relief. (6 Tex., 102; 8 Tex., 341; 2 Story’s Eq. Jur., 887.)
2. The judgment is erroneous. The injunction bond is only for $800, but judgment is rendered against the sureties for $2,200 and ten per cent, damages.
I A. $ Geo. W. Paschal, for defendants in error.
—There was no ground of error in the petition, and the judgment against the bondsmen was in accordance with the case of Cook v. Garza, (9 Tex., 361.) But the bondsmen are not before the court, as they have not appealed;* and this court has no jurisdiction over them.

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—The court below did not err in dissolving the injunction, and rendering judgment against the complainant and the sureties on her injunction bond. The judgment is erroneous as to the sureties, inasmuch as it is rendered for a much greater amount than the bond given • by them, as required by the judge. Of that error, however, they have not complained; and, therefore, there is no good ground presented for a reversal of the judgment against her, she being liable, without reference to the bond, for the amount of the original debt and damages thereon. (Hendrick v. Cannon, 5 Tex., 248.) The petition for injunction was fatally defective, in not stating intelligibly the nature of judgment rendered against her, the nature of her rights in the property affected by the levy of the execution, and the facts constituting the fraud in inducing her to accept service of process.
The judgment must be
Affirmed.