Hammak v. Lewis

Citations

• 34 Tex. 474

Syllabus

<p>1. Under the Constitution oí • 1866 (which gave to the county courts jurisdiction of money demands less than five hundred dollars), the district courts, by virtue of their general superintendence and control over inferior tribunals, had the power to bring before them, by the writ of certiorari, judgments of the county courts rendered on money demands. (Titus v. Latimer, 5 Texas, 433, cited by the court.)</p> <p>2. A defendant’s petition for a certiorari should not only show that be had a meritorious defense to the action, but also that he bad used proper diligence in presenting it; but inasmuch as the record brought up by certiorari to the district court shows that the plaintiff, without necessary proof, obtained judgment for a much greater amount than he was entitled to, this court looks to the merits of the case and the injustice of ' the original judgment, rather than, to objections to the petition for tile certiorari, imputing negligence to the defendant in not making proper defense in the original forum.</p> <p>3. The form of a judgment is not material, if it contains the substance required by law.</p> <p>4. Prior to the act of 1871, allowing appeals from interlocutory judgments, a judgment from which an appeal could be taken must have made some-final disposition of the ease. An order of a district court, overruling a motion to quash a writ of certiorari, was only interlocutory, and couhi not be appealed from.</p>