137 S.W. 1117 (Tex. 1911), Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas v. City of Sweetwater
|Citation:||137 S.W. 1117, 104 Tex. 329|
|Opinion Judge:||[104 Tex. 332] BROWN, C.J.|
|Party Name:||KANSAS CITY, M. & O. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. CITY OF SWEETWATER.|
|Attorney:||[104 Tex. 330] H. C. Hord, J. W. Hill, Jno. A. Eaton, and J. McD. Trimble, for plaintiff in error. [104 Tex. 331] R. C. Crane, Beall & Beall, C. P. Woodruff, A. H. Kirby, Johnson & Edwards, W. W. Hamilton, and A. C. Wilmeth, for defendant in error.|
|Case Date:||May 31, 1911|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Texas|
Error from Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.
Suit by the City of Sweetwater against the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Company of Texas to restrain defendant railway company from removing its general offices, shops, etc., from the city of Sweetwater. From a decree for complainant, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (131 S.W. 251), defendant brings error. Reversed.
In the year 1897 the Colorado Valley Railway Company was organized for the purpose of constructing and operating a railroad from Colorado City to San Angelo, which company contracted in writing with the citizens of Sweetwater to build its road from the latter place to San Angelo, and to maintain its general offices and machine shops at Sweetwater. The terms of the contract will not be given, as it is not necessary to the determination of any issue in the case.
In 1899 the said railroad company, being largely indebted upon bonds executed and other debts, was by the district court of Nolan county placed in the hands of a receiver, and after proper proceedings had in the court the road, with all its belongings, was sold by the [104 Tex. 333] receiver appointed by the court. There were debts against the company which had a lien superior to that of the mortgage bonds and the bondholders entered into an agreement under which they purchased the property at the receiver's sale, acting through trustees appointed for that purpose, and in pursuance of that agreement the trustees did purchase the property at the sale made by the receiver. The terms of the agreement between the bondholders, as to the manner of reorganizing the company and prosecuting it thereafter, is at present unimportant. important. To carry out the purposes of the purchase the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Comapny was organized and acquired the property and rights of the preceding
corporation, and thereafter, by amendment of its charter, its name was changed to the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Company of Texas. But the details of these transactions do not affect the questions of law which it is necessary for us to decide. They will be recited in so far as may be necessary to the decision of any question hereafter arising. The charter of the last-named company contained this recital: 'The charter of this company, filed July 20, 1899, established its general offices at Sweetwater to the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway 'formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and maintaining all the property of the Colorado Valley Railway Company, including all of its right of way, constructed main line and partly constructed roadbed and the appurtenances thereto, as the same has been acquired, owned and constructed by the Colorado Valley Railway Company under authority of its charter and the amendment thereto,' and for the purpose of constructing and operating a railway over the route and between the termini designated in the amended charter of the first company.' By consent of the city of Sweetwater, the railway company constructed its tracks over certain streets of said city, which consent the city claims was given as a consideration of a contract by which the company bound itself to permanently establish and maintain its general offices, roundhouses, and machine shops, etc., at the said city. Alleging that the company was about to remove its offices, machine shops and the like, from the city of Sweetwater, this suit was instituted to prevent such removal, and to that end sought and secured a temporary writ of injunction. Upon the trial of the cause the court sustained the plaintiff's contention and granted a writ of injunction to enjoin and prevent the said company from removing its...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP