Davidson v. Sadler

• Decision Date: 23 May 1900
• Citation: 57 S.W. 54
• Parties: DAVIDSON et al. v. SADLER et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

57 S.W. 54

DAVIDSON et al. v. SADLER et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1900.

Appeal from district court, McLennan county; Marshall Surratt, Judge.

Action by T. H. Sadler and B. E. Sparks against R. E. Davidson and another to restrain defendants from weighing cotton and other merchandise for others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Sanford & Lee and Boynton & Boynton, for appellants. D. A. Kelley, for appellees.

FISHER, C. J.

Appellees, T. H. Sadler and B. E. Sparks, as plaintiffs, filed their petition in the district court for the Nineteenth judicial district against appellants, R. E. Davidson and Bascom Brice, praying for an injunction restraining appellants from weighing cotton, sugar, hay, or grain for other persons, and for a judgment for damages. Appellees set up that they were the duly elected and qualified public weighers for the city of Waco, in McLennan county, Tex., and that as such officials they were prepared and ready to serve the public, and that appellants were not public weighers or deputy public weighers, but were nevertheless carrying on the business of weighers, and holding themselves out as weighers, and had a yard fitted up for that purpose in the city of Waco. On this petition a temporary injunction was granted. Appellants answered by (1) general demurrer, (2) general denial, and (3) specially admitting that appellees were public weighers, as stated; and also admitted that prior to the issuance of said injunction they had leased a yard, and had fitted up the same, and were weighing and handling cotton for farmers and merchants, and were carrying on the business of weighers, in the city of Waco, as a source of livelihood for appellants. They further alleged that they were not employed to weigh cotton for any factor, commission merchant, or other person, or persons carrying on any such business, or a similar business to that of a factor or commission merchant, but that they acted for farmers, merchants, and planters, and others owning cotton. Appellants also alleged that prior to the enactment of the present public-weigher statute they and many others in Texas made their livelihood by yarding and weighing cotton, and that the law was unconstitutional and void, because it seeks to deprive them of their source of livelihood, and that, if appellees had any remedy under said law, it was not the remedy prayed for in this action. Appellants also alleged that their method of doing business was to receive and store cotton, and charge for yardage, and weigh it, if requested, without charge. They set up their damages by reason of the injunction, and prayed that it might be dissolved, and that they have judgment. Appellees filed a supplemental petition, alleging that the injury they complained of was continuing, and that the right...