
    Fulgham v. Chevallier.
    Where A, having a claim against; B for less than $1.00, sues in a Justice’s Court and obtains judgment, and ab the same time B has a claim against A for more than $100, B can sue A on his claim ia the District Court and obtain an injunction to restrain the collection of A’s judgment in the meantime without an averment that A is insolvent (Note 93.)
    Where the' petition for an injunction contains a good cause of action, although the answer may traverse all -the material facts alleged, it is error to dismiss the petition, but it is proper in such a ease to dissolve the temporary injunction.
    Appeal from Nacogdoches. The appellant filed his petition setting out various claims and demands against the defendant, and that the defendant had sued him upon three several notes before a justice of the peace, and had obtained judgment against him thereupon; that on account of the jurisdiction of the justice’s court petitioner was not allowed to plead in reconveution the matters set forth in his petition. lie prayed that defendant be compelled to account, and lie prayed an injunction staying execution on tiie judgments rendered by tiie justice of the peace. Tiie injunction was awarded. Tiie defendant appeared aud excepted to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s petition, and prayed that it ho dismissed, and he at the same time answered the petition on oath. The court sustained the exception and dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed.
    
      T. J. Jennings, for appellant.
    
      J. M. Arclrey, for appellee.
   Lipscomb, J.

If the facts contained in the petition are true, and they must be regarded as true in deciding- on the exception, the plaintiff clearly showed a good cause of action, and it was error to dismiss the suit on the exception. The answer was full in denying- the equities of the petition, and on this ground the defendant would have been entitled to a dissolution of the injunction but not to a dismissal of the petition. That should have remained to be tried upon the issues of fact formed by the petition and answer as in other cases. Had the plaintiff rested his case on evidence to be procured by the answer of the defendant, the answer being full and furnishing no evidence in support of the plaintiff’s action, it might then have been right and proper to dismiss the suit. But the plaintiff did not so rest his cause of action. The judgment Of the court below is therefore erroneous, and it is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Note 93. — As to the point decided, see Brally v. Hancock, 17 T., 361; Pryor v. Emerson 22 T., 162.  