Gault v. Goldthwaite

Citations

• 34 Tex. 104

Syllabus

<p>1. A trustee being about to sell land conveyed to him by a debtor in trust to pay debts, he was enjoined from selling by a third party, who claimed to be a prior incumbrancer. Held, that the injunction was one whereby the “ collection of money was enjoined,” within the meaning of article 3935, Paschal’s Digest.</p> <p>2. If an injunction improperly restrained the collection of money, the district court, on dissolving it, was bound to adjudge against the plaintiff the ten per cent, damages awarded by the statute above referred tp; and it is immaterial whether the injunction was granted on the prayer of the debtor, or upon that of a third party. The ruling to the contrary in Carlin v. Hudson, 12 Texas, 202, controverted and overruled.</p> <p>3. Though there may have been no necessity for submitting to a jury the question whether an injunction had been obtained for delay, yot the district court had the right to adopt that mode oi ascertaining that or any other fact pertinent to the case ; and the fact that it was obtained for delay being thus established, the amount of the damages was fixed by the statute.</p>