Case Name: AMERICAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. THAMES
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1933-11-01
Citations: 65 S.W.2d 447
Docket Number: No. 4091
Parties: AMERICAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. THAMES.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 65
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
AMERICAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. THAMES.
No. 4091.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
Nov. 1, 1933.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1933.
Joiner & Cook, of Plainview, for appellant.
M. J. Baird, of Plainview, for appellee.

Opinion:
HALL, Chief Justice.
May 16, 1932, appellee, Thames, sued the appellant in the county court of Hale county to cancel certain notes which he had executed to appellant, charging that the notes were usurious. During the pendency of that suit, the appellant corporation sued Thames in the justice court of Dallas county to recover upon the notes and foreclose a chattel mortgage covering an automobile which was given to secure the payment of the notes. The appellee filed his plea in the justice court at Dallas, seeking to abate that action upon the ground that the Hale county suit had been previously filed involving the same matters between the same parties and was still pending. The justice court in Dallas county took the matter under advisement, and twelve days thereafter overruled the plea in abatement, and, in the absence of appellee, the case was tried and judgment rendered against him in the sum of $99.86. Later execution was issued upon the judgment in Dallas county, sent to Hale county, and on January 17, 1933, the constable levied upon the automobile in question, and on the 26th day of January, 1933, the appellee presented his petition for injunction to the county judge of Hale county, praying that the constable be enjoined from selling said automobile. Temporary injunction was granted, and a trial upon the merits was had on the 18th day of March, 1933, and the temporary injunction was made permanent. From that order this appeal is prosecuted.
The court erred in granting the injunction. It is settled law that the county court is without jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in a sum less than $200, and it is fundamental error for the county court to issue the writ. Specialty Service Corp. v. Armstrong (Tex. Civ. App.) 296 S. W. 958; U. O. Colson Co. v. Powell (Tex. Civ. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 405.
The judgment is reversed, and the injunction is dissolved. The cause is dismissed.