Churchill v. Martin

Citations

• 65 Tex. 367
• 1886 Tex. LEXIS 669

Syllabus

<p>1. Mandamus—Appeal—Supersedeas bond, effect of—The execution of a judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus, is suspended by the filing of a proper appeal bond. (Following, Griffin v. Wakelee, 42 Tex. 513.)</p> <p>2. Appeal—Jurisdiction of district court over judgment appealed from—After the approval of a proper appeal bond, the district court still has, during the term, jurisdiction to modify or to set aside the judgment appealed from, but not to enforce such judgment. (Citing Blum v. Wettermark (58 Tex. 125), and Garza v. Baker (58 Tex. 487.)</p> <p>3. Same—Jurisdiction of supreme court—Injunction—When the appeal bond has been filed and approved, the complaining party has done, substantially, all required of him to give the supreme court jurisdiction of the case, and the supreme court may then, under its constitutional power to protect and enforce its own jurisdiction, issue writs of injunction. But until the appeal bond is filed and approved, the case is, in no sense, in the supreme court, and it has no authority to interfere with the proceedings in the district court.</p> <p>4. Same—Extraordinary writs—Jurisdiction of supreme court—The extraordinary writs can be used in the supreme court, only in cases of which it has acquired jurisdiction. They cannot be used to set aside orders made or to correct results which transpired before the appeal bond was given. (Citing Wells v. Littlefield, 62 Tex. 30.)</p>