Albright v. Mallory
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Panola. The entry of the order dissolving the injunction was as follows : The cause coming on to be heard on motion, it is ordered by the Court, that the injunction be dissolved, and that said Daniel H. Mallory have and recover of the said Jeremiah Albright and his sureties, John K. Williams and Stephen L. Davis, the sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars, together with a}l costs of suit in this behalf expended, for which let execution issue, on the said Daniel H.…
Read the full summary
Error from Panola. The entry of the order dissolving the injunction was as follows : The cause coming on to be heard on motion, it is ordered by the Court, that the injunction be dissolved, and that said Daniel H. Mallory have and recover of the said Jeremiah Albright and his sureties, John K. Williams and Stephen L. Davis, the sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars, together with a}l costs of suit in this behalf expended, for which let execution issue, on the said Daniel H. Mallory giving to the said Jeremiah Al-bright his refunding bond in the sum of two hundred and thirty dollars,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
The injunction granted on the filing of *107the petition, was dissolved on the coming in of the answer, and on motion. Judgment was entered against the plaintiff and his sureties in the injunction bond, and the defendant required to give a refunding bond as directed by Statute. (Hart. Dig. Art. 1604.) But there was no final hearing or decree on the merits. There was no such final judgment as could be the subject of appeal or writ of error, and the writ is accordingly dismissed.
Writ of error dismissed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Pryor v. EmersonTexas Supreme Court · 1858