Court Opinion

ID: 9827602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:41:32.173756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.666919
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The proposition that the question as to the dormancy of the judgment is a proper one for litigation in the trial courts, rather than for decision on this application for writ of prohibition, is more plausible than any of ’the others advanced by respondents. However, under the particular facts of this case we are of the opinion that it cannot be sustained. The question of the dormancy of the judgment, as we pointed out in the original opinion, is determined by ascertaining when the judgment of this court became final; that is a matter determinable by proceedings of record in this court, of which we take judicial cognizance; and it would seem reasonable that this court, subject to review of that decision by the Supreme Court, is the most appropriate tribunal to decide such a question as to its own judgment. The district court of McLennan county has no jurisdiction to enjoin execution of the judgment of even another district court of this state, except on the ground that such judgment is a nullity; and it would have no jurisdiction to enjoin the judgment of another district court on the ground of the dormancy of such judgment. R. S. arts. 4653, 4643 (3); Landa Cotton Oil Co. v. Watkins (Tex. Civ. App.) 255 S. W. 775. Since this court is enabled to say as a matter of law, if we are correct in our conclusion as to when the judgment of this court became final, that the dormancy of the judgment does not stand in the way of its execution, we are convinced that; we have the right, and that it is our duty, to prohibit the respondents from interfering with the execution of what we conceive to be the final and valid judgment of this court.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.