Case Name: Daniel H. Brundage v. John Candle
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 387
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel H. Brundage v. John Candle.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 387–389

Head Matter:
Daniel H. Brundage v. John Candle.
Where it is averred that a justice had not jurisdiction, if, primei facie, he had jurisdiction of the amounts which he tried, on different accounts between the same parties, it ought to be averred that the defense was made to appear before the justice.
If the complaint is that the plaintiff, before the justice, had split his one cause of action into several, it ought to be alleged of what the one and of what the several accounts consisted.
Error from Dallas. The case was tried before Hon. Hat. M. Burford, one of the district judges.
Brundage prayed for an injunction against Candle, alleging that, in 1859, Candle had sued him before a justice of the peace in four suits, “ which together covered one entire account, for $243 70;” that one of said suits was for a part of said account for $50, one for $60, one for $75, and one for $58 70, giving the respective dates; that the then defendant, before the justice, tried to dismiss because of this splitting the account to give jurisdiction, and by consolidating, so as to make the added amounts above $1001 But the justice clung to his jurisdiction, and on the suit for $50, he gave Candle $20; upon the account for $58 70, he gave Candle $8 70; and on another day, upon the suit for $75, Candle recovered $10. What became of the suit for $60, which Brundage vainly asked should be consolidated with the $75, is not explained in the petition, nor is it stated who swore them down. The result of the whole statement of the petition is, that Candle split up his demand of $243 70 into four actions, which covered that amount, and that he got judgments which amounted to $38 *70. Judge Burford issued the ad interim injunction, requiring a bond in the sum of $100.
Just how the transcripts of the magistrate’s docket got into the record does not appear. But four transcripts, containing proceedings in four attachment suits on four accounts in the cases of John Candle v. D. H. Brundage, were filed two days before the trial, and were copied between the writ of injunction and the answer to the. injunction petition. Candle filed a demurrer, and assigned for special causes that the affidavit to the petition was insufficient; that there is no averment that there was any plea to the jurisdiction before the justice; that the account for $243 70 is not set out or described, so as to show what was ' adjudicated before the justice; that the injunction bill is insufficient; that it does not show that the plaintiff presented his defense before the justice, or why he did not plead to the jurisdiction; wherefore he prayed that the action be dismissed, and the injunction dissolved.
In his answer, Brundage admits that he brought the four suits before the justice, as charged; but he denies that he ever “instituted four several suits against the plaintiff on one entire account for $243 70,” as charged in the plaintiff's petition. He explains this by saying that “the said four suits were instituted on four distinct causes of action, which accrued at different times and dates, and that the defendant elected to sue upon them separately before a justice of the peace, as he had a right to do.” He denies that the plaintiff plead to the jurisdiction before the justice, and insists that the justice was right to refuse to consolidate the actions. There was a separate motion to dissolve the injunction on the petition and answer, with a prayer for damages. “ The exceptions were sustained,” the injunction dissolved, a procedendo ordered to the justice, and Brundage was adjudged to pay the costs. The plaintiff prosecuted error, and assigned the rulings of the court as error.
K. G. McKenzie, for plaintiff in error. '
This case was brought before the District Court by injunction.
The petition and the transcripts from the justice’s court show that the court had no jurisdiction, and that the judgments sought to be enjoined were therefore void.
■ The judgments being void, the injunction should not have been dissolved. (Edrington v. Allsbrooks, 21 Tex., 186; Willis v. Gordon, 22 Tex., 241.)
The injunction having been dissolved, the district court should have rendered judgment against the complainant, and not ordered the issuance of a writ of procedendo.
ZsTo brief for the appellee.

Opinion:
Wheeler, O. J.
—It does not appear by the petition and transcript from the justice's court that the justice proceeded to judgment in causes of which he had not jurisdiction. Prima fade, the several causes of action sued on were within his jurisdiction. It is averred that they were parts of one entire account, which exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice; but it does not so appear, nor is it averred that it was made so to appear before the justice. It ought to appear by the petition of what the alleged account consisted, in order that the court might judge whether there was one or several causes of action. The petition was therefore insufficient; it failed to show that the justice had not jurisdiction; and, unless his judgment was void for want of jurisdiction, the proceeding by injunction cannot be maintained. There is no error in the judgment, and it is
Affirmed.