Hailey v. Brooks
Decision Date | 23 December 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 8671.) |
Citation | 191 S.W. 781 |
Parties | HAILEY v. BROOKS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Taylor County.
Injunction by E. E. Hailey against J. L. Brooks and others. From an order denying the writ, petitioner appeals. Order set aside, and cause remanded.
Kirby & King, of Abilene, for appellant. Ben L. Cox, of Abilene, for appellees.
It is further charged:
"That the purpose of this act and order by the defendants was to inure to the benefit of an establishment of a like kind which had, on or about that time, been opened in the basement of one of the school buildings, and which said establishment was dealing in the same character of wares, merchandise, and food as this plaintiff, and which said establishment this plaintiff charges was owned and controlled by the defendant J. L. Brooks and A. H. Roberts, and other members of the faculty of the Abilene High School, the names of which are unknown to the plaintiff; that by such order, prohibiting children and patrons of this plaintiff from dealing and trading with him, it was intended, and so stated by these defendants herein, that the purpose of the same was to enforce the children to trade with the establishment in the basement of the public school building, to the end that persons other than this plaintiff would profit thereby, and to the end that this plaintiff would be driven from his location and his business destroyed; that defendants and their agents and servants stated publicly that they would put plaintiff out of business, and that they took the action complained of for no other purpose."
It is further alleged that since the order complained of went into effect, the patronage of his business has absolutely ceased through fear on the children's part of punishment, and that as a result his said business has been ruined and destroyed. It is charged that said order was unreasonable and without the scope of defendants' authority, and because it had been promulgated with the avowed purpose and intention to destroy the plaintiff's business, and had been issued maliciously and willfully, and he prays for actual and exemplary damages in the sum of $5,030.
The petition was duly verified by the plaintiff, Hailey, but on presentation to the judge of said district court, his prayer for the issuance of an injunction was denied; hence the appeal, as stated in the beginning.
Generally speaking, it must be said that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Egner v. Texas City Independent School District
...preserving that degree of discipline (which Webster equates with "orderly conduct") necessary to the learning experience. Cf. Hailey v. Brooks, 191 S.W. 781 (Tex.Civ.App. — Ft. Worth 1916, no writ). This obvious parallel between the criminal process and the school disciplinary process has f......
-
Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, Civ. A. No. 71-H-52.
...Fort Worth Independent School District, 453 S.W.2d 888 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1970, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Hailey v. Brooks, 191 S.W. 781 (Tex.Civ.App.— Fort Worth 1916, writ ref'd). See Cornette v. Aldridge, 408 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. Civ.App.—Amarillo 1966, writ mandamus overruled). The forego......
-
Pervis v. LaMarque Independent School District
...may be reasonably necessary to enable the teachers to perform their duties and to effect the general purposes of education." Hailey v. Brooks, 191 S.W. 781, 783 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1916, no writ). As the District Court pointed out in Stevenson v. Wheeler County Board of Education, 306 ......
-
Casey County Bd. of Ed. v. Luster
...with the regulation that they not patronize the Russell cafe during school hours. Appellee puts his chief reliance in Hailey v. Brooks, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W. 781. There, the complaint charged the trustees and faculty of the school entered into a conspiracy to boycott plaintiff's business i......