Case Name: Gregg and others v. Cole and others
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1849-12
Citations: 5 Tex. 417
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gregg and others v. Cole and others.
Judges: Lipscomb, J., did not sit in this case.
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 209–209

Head Matter:
Gregg and others v. Cole and others.
'Where a mortgagee has brought suit to enforce the-mortgage, another party who claims by title paramount to that of the mortgagor cannot sustain a separate action for an injunction to restrain the mortgagee from proceeding in his suit on the mortgage.
Appeal from Milam. This was a proceeding instituted by the appellants to enjoin the appellee Cole from prosecuting a suit previously commenced by him by attachment against Gilbert Longstreet in the District Court of Milam county. The cause of action as set forth in the petition was that in 1839 Cole sold a league of land to Longstreet, a citizen of the State of Georgia; that Longstreet, being an alien, acquired no property in the land, but that it became vacant, and that the plaintiffs located land certificates upon it; that Cole had brought suit against Longstreet for the recovery of $6,5t)0, and had caused an attachment to be issued and levied upon the land’as the property of Longstreet; and that unless Cole should be restrained from prosecuting his suit he would probably obtain judgment and cause the laud tobe sold before the plaintiffs could consummate their titles; in which, they alleged, they had been delayed in consequence of the suspension of the business of the land office. The plaintiffs prayed for an injunction to restrain Cole from the further prosecution of his snir; that he be decreed to convey to them a “quit claim” to the land; and that the title be adjudged to them.
To this petition there was a demurrer sustained, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Taylor, for appellants.
Gillespie, for appellees.
Lipscomb, J., did not sit in this case.

Opinion:
Wheeler, J.
We are'of opinion that the demurrer was rightly sustained. That the appellants had no legal right thus to interpose and arrest the proceedings in the appellee's suit is, we think, too plain for argument.
Judgment affirmed.