Conley v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 29 July 1913 |
| Citation | 164 S.W. 985 |
| Parties | CONLEY v. ANDERSON, District Judge, et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
B. F. Looney, Atty. Gen., and C. M. Cureton, C. A. Sweeton, and C. W. Taylor, Asst. Attys. Gen., for relator. Williams & Neethe, of Galveston, and Denman, Franklin & McGown and Webb & Goeth, all of San Antonio, for respondents.
In the case of A. B. Conley et al. v. Daughters of the Republic, 156 S. W. 197, decided April 30, 1913, it was held by this court that under the authority of the act of the Thirty-Second Legislature (1st Called Session) the plaintiff in error Conley, Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, was entitled to enter upon that part of the Alamo property known as the Hugo & Schmelzer Company property and expend in its improvement, upon the approval of the Governor, the sum of $5,000, appropriated by the act for that purpose; that the act was not in conflict with that of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature, creating a trusteeship in the Daughters of the Republic for the custody of the Alamo property and vesting its custody in that organization; and that upon the expenditure of the $5,000 appropriation in such improvement the right of the plaintiff in error Conley to entry and possession of the property would expire.
It appears that on July 1, 1913, the Daughters of the Republic filed a second suit in the district court of Bexar county against Conley and others, seeking a further injunction against the prosecution of such work under allegations in substance that the $5,000 appropriation made by the Thirty-Second Legislature had lapsed, and that, as they were advised and charged, other moneys than the $5,000 appropriation were being or would be expended by Conley in such work, whereupon Hon. W. S. Anderson, District Judge, granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants and set the application for an injunction for hearing on July 8th.
After the institution of such suit the relator presented to members of this court an application for a writ of prohibition and injunction to restrain the prosecution of this suit as an interference with the judgment rendered by this court in the original case. We declined to take any action upon such application pending the hearing of the case appointed by the district judge. Upon such hearing, and the showing there made by the defendants that no other moneys than the legislative appropriation had been expended in the work, and that the expenditure of no other or further sum was within their purpose, the district judge discontinued the restraining order and held the issuance of an injunction to be unnecessary, continuing the case, however, upon the docket.
It now appears from the petition presented to us that the plaintiffs and their counsel are preparing to actively prosecute the suit named, and to require certain of the defendants to submit to an examination and give testimony concerning the plans of the work, and other matters in relation thereto.
Under the judgment of this court in the original case the defendant Conley as an executive officer of the state is entitled to prosecute the work of the improvement of this property to the extent of the $5,000 appropriation made by the Legislature for that purpose, without interference from the plaintiffs in this suit, and without being required to account to them in its performance. He, as well as they, is bound by that judgment, and it will be enforced. We regard the prosecution of the pending suit, and the action of the plaintiffs and their attorneys referred to, as an interference with such judgment and its due execution.
It is accordingly ordered that the petition of the relator be filed, and that the clerk issue a temporary injunction restraining the Daughters of the Republic and their attorneys from any further prosecution of the present suit pending in the district court at Bexar county, styled The Daughters of the Republic of Texas v. Dr. A. B. Conley et al., No. B—6146, and from causing any process to therein issue, and from the institution of any further suit seeking to interfere with the execution of the judgment of this court in the case above named, until the further orders of this court, returnable the first Monday in October, 1913; likewise issuing notice to them to appear at that time and show cause why such injunction should not be made permanent.
We will not recite at length the facts in this case, but will give a condensed statement only, referring to the opinions of this court in cause No. 2507 for a complete...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clark
...will be found collated in the report of that case. They reiterated that holding and issued a writ of prohibition in the case of Conley v. Anderson, 164 S. W. 985. Shortly thereafter this court, in the case of State ex rel. Looney v. Hamblen, District Judge, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 526, 169 S. W. 678......
-
Madeksho v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols Etc.
...n.r.e.); Los Campeones, Inc. v. Valley Int'l Prop., Inc., 591 S.W.2d 312, 315 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1979, no writ). 19. 164 S.W. 985, 986 (Tex.1913). 20. See Tex.R.App. P. 51.1(b); Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby, 804 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Tex. 1991) (requiring trial court to "observe......
-
Clayton v. Clayton
...prosecution of such suit will be prohibited as being an interference with the enforcement of the judgment of this court. Conley v. Anderson, Tex.Sup., 164 S.W. 985; Hovey v. Shepherd, 105 Tex. 237, 147 S.W. 224; City of Palestine v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 215." (Emphasis An......
-
City of Dallas v. Dixon
...court judgment or an element of harassment and vexatious litigation. See Hovey v. Shepherd, 105 Tex. 237, 147 S.W. 224; Conley v. Anderson Tex., 164 S.W. 985; Sparenberg v. Lattimore, 134 Tex. 671, 139 S.W.2d 77; Nash v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 182; Haskell National B......