Wolf v. Dubst
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Nacogdoches. I. The court helow had no right to reconsider the. grant of the order after the expiration of the term of its grant. (Dickinson v. Wilkinson’s administrator, 3 How. 11., 57.) II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Nacogdoches. I. The court helow had no right to reconsider the. grant of the order after the expiration of the term of its grant. (Dickinson v. Wilkinson’s administrator, 3 How. 11., 57.) II. Tho court helow erred in setting aside this order (without the happening of the contingency on which its dural ion depended) on grounds of alleged legal insufficiency, for in so decreeing he greatly mistook the powers and duty of a court of equity if Chancellor Kent is tobo believed. (Johnson v. Gerz, 2 Johns. Oh. B., 547.)
1Opinion of the CourtLipscomb, J.
The appellant contends that tho court helow erred in dissolving the injunction before there had been a final disposition of the suit brought by Lewis against the appellant and James II. Durst to recover 1¡he land purchased by appellant of the said James II. Durst, for which the note sued on. in this ease was given in part consideration, the balance of the consideration having been paid; that it was not competent for the court below after having made the order for an injunction to set it aside at a subsequent term.
The suit instituted by Lewis was pending in the same coiu-t to recover the land.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gober v. HartTexas Supreme Court · 1872