Court Opinion

ID: 9827471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:35:11.475469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:31.837079
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
As stated in the original opinion, the suit filed by appellant against Thames in the justice court of Dallas county was subsequent to the institution of this suit in the county court of Hale county. The ap-pellee filed his plea of privilege in the justice court of Dallas county seeking to abate that action upon the ground that the Hale county suit had been previously instituted. The justice court in Dallas county overruled the plea in abatement and rendered judgment against appellee. A fact which is not stated in the original opinion is that no ef--fort was made by appellee to take the case to the county court either by appeal or cer-tiorari. The justice court had jurisdiction of the matters involved, and the judgment there rendered is final and conclusive of the matters in litigation. In the motion for rehearing appellant insists that, when the county court of Hale county acquired jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter, it had the power and jurisdiction to issue all necessary process for the enforcement and protection of its jurisdiction, regardless of-the amount in controversy. The authorities, cited have no bearing upon the issue here. The judgment in the Dallas county justice court is not only final, but it is res judicata of the issues involved, and, although the action was commenced subsequent to the suit in Hale county, the fact that it was prosecuted to judgment, which has become final, makes it possible for the appellant here to plead it as res judicata in the county court of Hale county. Cavers v. Sioux Oil & Refining Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 43 S.W.(2d) 578; Cook v. Burnley, 45 Tex. 97; Cattlemen’s Trust Co. v. Blasingame (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 574; Cleveland v. Ward, 116 Tex. 1, 285 S. W. 1063. The attempt to enjoin the execution of the Dallas county judgment is a' collateral attack, and, since that judgment is not void upon its face, the privilege of litigating the matters in Hale county having been successfully contested in Dallas county, and no attempt to reverse the judgment of the justice of the peace on that account having been made, the county court of Hale county had no right to issue the injunction to restrain the collection of the judgment rendered for less than $100, as held in the original opinion.
The motion is overruled.