Arnold v. Kreissler
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Medina. Tried below before the Hon. E. F. Buckner. There was no statement of facts in this case. The facts, as collected from the record, showed that Joseph Meyer obtained an injunction restraining Kreissler, the defendant in error, from selling certain property claimed by Meyer ; and that Arnold, the plaintiff in error, became one of the sureties upon the injunction bond. On defendant’s answer to the bill, the injunction was dissolved.
Read the full summary
Error from Medina. Tried below before the Hon. E. F. Buckner. There was no statement of facts in this case. The facts, as collected from the record, showed that Joseph Meyer obtained an injunction restraining Kreissler, the defendant in error, from selling certain property claimed by Meyer ; and that Arnold, the plaintiff in error, became one of the sureties upon the injunction bond. On defendant’s answer to the bill, the injunction was dissolved. At the next term, the plaintiff moved to set aside the order dissolving the injunction, and to reinstate it, on account of the answer not appearing…
1Opinion of the Court
Wheeler, Ch. J.
There is no error in the judgment. It was, doubtless, competent for the court to permit the defendant to supply the affidavit to the answer, now for then, if satisfied that the answer had been sworn to at the proper time; and if not, it was competent to allow the amendment, which was an answer to the motion to reinstate. At most, the dissolution of the injunction, at the time, was a mere irregularity, not affecting the merits, or the correctness of the judgment. It must have been dissolved upon the return of the verdict, and the judgment would have been the same.
Judgment…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gray & Wallace v. Steedman Bros.Texas Supreme Court · 1885
- Nettles v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878
- Strickland v. WoffordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913