Case Name: Preston Witt v. Kaufman & Kleaver
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: Preston Witt v. Kaufman & Kleaver.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 384–386

Head Matter:
Preston Witt v. Kaufman & Kleaver.
A citation directed to an officer of one county cannot be legally served by an officer of a different county.
Where there is no legal service or appearance the judgment is void.'
[For authorities on this point, see Paschal’s Annot. Const., Note 218, p. 213; Paschal’s Dig., Note 101, p. 17.]
Where a judgment is void, the defendant has the right to enjoin the plaintiffs from enforcing an execution.
Where a defendant in a judgment .obtains an injunction to have the judgment declared void, the court will retain jurisdiction and render judgment on the original cause of action, if the plaintiff in the execution is legally entitled to it on the merits.
Error from Dallas.—The case was tried before Hon. Hat. M. Burford, one of the district judges.
Witt prayed for and obtained an injunction to restrain the plaintiffs in certain executions and the justice who rendered it and the sheriff from proceeding, on the alleged ground that the justice who rendered the judgments had no jurisdiction over the complainant; because, 1, at the time the judgment was rendered, he, Witt, was, and long had been, a resident of Parker county, in the State of Texas; 2, that the judgments were rendered without legal notice; “the only notice he ever had received being what purports to be a citation, directed "to any lawful officer of said Dallas county, issued by said Justice Smith, commanding them to cite petitioner, &c., which was. delivered to petitioner by said P. S. Hall, deputy sheriff of Parker county, which is marked exhibit “A.” Exhibit “A” showed no service of the summons of the justice whatever. But in another part of the record there was a citation and return corresponding to the allegation. The ad interim injunction was granted by Judge Burford. The complainant discontinued as to the justice. Kaufman & Kleaver, the plaintiffs in the justice’s judgment, filed a general demurrer, upon which the court dissolved the injunction, dismissed the petition, and ordered a procedendo to the justice. The transcript from the justice showed that the judgments of the justice were rendered on promissory notes, payable “in the town of Dallas.”
F. C. McKenzie, for plaintiff in error.
—The judgment, having been rendered without notice to defendant, is void, and, being void, the proper remedy was by injunction. (Edrington v. Allsbrooks, 21 Tex., 186; Willis v. Gordon, 22 Tex., 241.)
.Nicholson Ferris, for defendants in error.
—This was an injunction to stop proceedings of the magistrate’s court upon a judgment rendered by the magistrate in favor of Kaufman & Kleaver v. P. Witt. Upon motion the injunction was dissolved in the court below for want of equity in the bill. The suit in the magistrate’s court was upon a promissory note made payable in Dallas. Witt was a resident of Parker county, and the suit was brought in Dallas. The only complaint worthy of notice, set out in the bill, is, that the writ or summons served upon Witt was directed to the sheriff) or other officer of Dallas county authorized to execute, and, as the bill shows, the sheriff of Parker county executed and returned the'writ. Hence plaintiff in error says he had no service. In reply to that, we say, if he had no legal notice of the suit, his remedy was not by injunction, but by certiorari. He had a full, complete, and perfect remedy at law, and there were no grounds for invoking the interposition of a court of equity. If Witt were not legally served, he should have shown that fact, and attended the magistrate’s court for the purpose. He could not absent himself from that court, decline asserting his right at law, for the purpose of applying to a court of equity to relieve him from the consequences of his own laches, and negligence. If he chose, however, not to attend the magistrate’s court, his remedy was by certiorari. The authorities, we think, fully sustain us in these positions.

Opinion:
Wheeler, 0. J.
—There was no legal service upon the defendant to appear and answer to the suit "before the justice. A citation, directed to an officer of Dallas county to execute,-was no authority to the sheriff of Parker county to execute the process. Service of the 'process by him was, in contemplation of law, no service. The court, therefore, had not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and the judgment was consequently void. The defendant, therefore, was entitled to have it so declared, and the proceedings under it enjoined. But the court having obtained cognizance of the case for one purpose, would retain it for • the further purpose of doing full and complete_ justice between the parties, and would give judgment for the plaintiff upon the cause of action on which the judgment of the justice was rendered, if, upon the merits, the .plaintiff was entitled to judgment. Such is the practice as settled by the decisions of this court. (Edrington v. Allsbrooks, 21 Tex., 186; Willis v. Gordon, 22 Tex., 241.)
We are of opinion that the court erred in dismissing the petition, for which the judgment must be
Reversed and the cause remanded.