Case Name: McFARLAND v. HAMMOND et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-02-10
Citations: 173 S.W. 645
Docket Number: No. 2653
Parties: McFARLAND v. HAMMOND et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 173
Pages: 645–661

Head Matter:
McFARLAND v. HAMMOND et al.
(No. 2653.)
(Supreme Court of Texas.
Feb. 10, 1915.
Dissenting Opinion, Feb. 22, 1915.)
Appeal and Error <s&wkey;32 — Intermediate Appellate Court — Judgment — Conclusiveness — Preliminary Injunction — Writ op Error by Supreme Court.
Since a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is made conclusive, on appeal from an interlocutory decree granting a temporary injunction restraining the seizure and sale under execution of personal property claimed to be exempt, by Rev. St. 1911, art. 1591, the Supreme Court is not authorized by Acts 30th Leg. c. 107, as amended by Acts 31st Leg. 1st Extra Sess. c. 34, to grant a writ of error to review such determination.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 107-109; Dec. Dig. &wkey;> 32.]
Hawkins, J., dissenting.
Error to Court of Civil Appeals for the’ First Supreme Judicial District.
Action between C. E. McFarland and M. F. Hammond and others. Judgment in favor of the latter (161 S. W. 47), and the former brings error.
On motion to dismiss. Granted.
Gibson & Wander, of Houston, for plaintiff in error. Stanley A. Beard and Hutcheson & Hutcheson, all of Houston, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, J.
The appeal prosecuted in this ease to the honorable Court of Civil Appeals was from an interlocutory decree of the county court at law of Harris county, granting a temporary injunction restraining the seizure and sale under execution of certain personal property claimed to be exempt. It is a case in which the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is made conclusive by article 1591, and to which, by the terms of that article, this court is prohibited from allowing a writ of error. Cole v. State, 170 S. W. 1036.
Under the act of 1907 (General Laws of 1907, p. 206) providing for appeals from interlocutory orders granting, refusing, or dissolving temporary injunctions, amended by the act of 1909 (General Laws of 1909, p. 354), we have assumed jurisdiction to grant a writ of error in such appeals, where the case was not of the character in which the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is made final by article 1591. It is obvious, however, that that act has not the effect of enlarging the jurisdiction of this court, save as to the power to review such interlocutory orders which theretofore was denied it, and does not authorize the granting of a writ of error on appeals from such orders in cases of which, by article 1591, the Court of Civil Appeals has final jurisdiction.
The motion to dismiss the application for writ of error for want of jurisdiction is therefore granted.
@=»lTor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes