Butler v. Remington
| Decision Date | 02 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9683.) |
| Citation | 230 S.W. 224 |
| Parties | BUTLER et al. v. REMINGTON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Bruce Young, Judge.
Action by E. Remington against Ben I. Butler and others. From a temporary injunction granted plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Arthur Heemann, of Fort Worth, for appellants.
Dee Estes and A. G. Mueller, both of Fort Worth, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a temporary injunction granted on ex parte hearing in favor of E. Remington against Ben I. Butler, Arthur Heman, and H. B. Bowles. There are a number of reasons assigned why the judgment below is erroneous, but we will notice only one; i. e., that the affidavit to the petition upon which the injunction was granted was not in proper form. The petition is sworn to by plaintiff's attorney as follows:
"I, Dee Estes, one of the attorneys of record for the plaintiff herein, do swear that the matters and facts above alleged are true and correct, according to my information and belief."
We do not believe that this affidavit is sufficient to sustain a petition for injunction. Article 4649, V. S. Tex. Civ. Stats., provides that no injunction shall be granted unless the applicant present a petition verified by his affidavit. This affidavit must state that the facts upon which the applicant relies to sustain his injunction are true, and an affidavit upon information and belief is insufficient. Wilson v. Adams, 15 Tex. 323; Pullen v. Baker, 41 Tex. 419; Graham v. McCarty, 69 Tex. 324, 7 S. W. 342; Railway Co. v. Pietzsch, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 572, 30 S. W. 1083; Clarey v. Hurst, 136 S. W. 840; Smith v. Banks, 152 S. W. 449; Foresty Oil Co. v. Wilson, 178 S. W. 628; Kopplin v. Ludwig, 170 S. W. 105; Ginther v. De Zabalgoitio, 170 S. W. 793. The form of the affidavit may be questioned for the first time on appeal. White v. Ferris, 186 S. W. 367.
The judgment below will be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the trial court to set aside the judgment heretofore granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Ferguson
...S. W. 105; Ginther v. De Zabalgoitio (Tex. Civ. App.) 170 S. W. 793; White v. Ferris (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 367; Butler v. Remington (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 224; West Texas Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Stolte (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 632; City of Arlington v. Dallas-Fort Worth Safety......
-
Zanes v. Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. of Texas
...Kopplin v. Ludwig (Tex. Civ. App.) 170 S. W. 105; Robertson v. Economy Plumbing Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 481; Butler v. Remington (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 224. In construing article 4647, supra, the court in the case of Butler v. Remington, supra, stated: "This affidavit must state ......
-
West Texas Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Stolte
...204 S. W. 785; Wilkinson v. Lyon (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 638; Wilkening v. Wolff (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 598; Butler v. Remington (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 224. The defect in the affidavit was called to the attention of the trial judge in the motion to dissolve the injunction. Articl......
-
Bledsoe v. Mack
...may be raised for the first time in the Courts of Civil Appeals. White v. Ferris (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 367; Butler v. Remington (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 224. The defect is not waived by a failure to call the trial court's attention thereto in this character of a proceeding." To a lik......