Fort Worth St. Ry. Co. v. Rosedale St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 April 1887
• Citation: Fort Worth St. Ry. Co. v. Rosedale St. Ry. Co., 7 S.W. 381 (Tex. 1887)
• Parties: FORT WORTH ST. RY. CO. v. ROSEDALE ST. RY. CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

7 S.W. 381

FORT WORTH ST. RY. CO. v. ROSEDALE ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 22, 1887.

On motion for attachment for contempt.

Plaintiff filed the following motion:

"To the Honorable Supreme Court of the State of Texas: Your complainant, the Fort Worth Street-Railway Company, respectfully represents to the court that heretofore, to-wit, on the 17th day of September, 1884, your complainant applied to the district court of Tarrant county, Texas, for an injunction to enjoin and restrain the Rosedale Street-Railway Company from building or constructing any street-railway track on Houston street, in the city of Fort Worth, in Tarrant county, Texas, until the respective rights of complainant and said Rosedale Street-Railway Company had been adjudicated and settled by the hereinafter mentioned suit, then pending in said district court of Tarrant county, to determine the question as to which of said two companies had the superior right to build and construct a street railway on said Houston street; that said district court of Tarrant county granted said application, and issued a writ of injunction enjoining and restraining said Rosedale Street-Railway Company, its officers, agents, and servants, from building or constructing any street-railway track on said Houston street until the respective rights of complainant and said Rosedale Street-Railway Company had been adjudicated and settled by said suit; that complainant was defendant in the suit in which it obtained said injunction, namely, the suit of The Rosedale Street-Railway Company v. The Fort Worth Street-Railway Company; that said suit is now in appeal in this (the supreme) court, said Fort Worth Street-Railway Company being appellant, and said Rosedale Street-Railway Company being appellee, and the said suit was brought to determine which of the parties, complainant or said Rosedale Street-Railway Company, had the superior right to build and construct a street railway on said Houston street; that in said suit, said district court of Tarrant county, Texas, on the 15th day of May, 1885, rendered a judgment decreeing the dissolution of said injunction, and holding same for naught, and adjudging the superior right to construct and build a street railway on said Houston street to be in said Rosedale Street-Railway Company; that this complainant has prosecuted an appeal from said judgment to the supreme court of the state of Texas, and said appeal is now pending in said supreme court at Austin, Texas; that the effect of said appeal is to continue in force said injunction. That heretofore, to-wit, on the ____ day of March, 1887, said Rosedale Street-Railway Company, its officers, agents, and servants, under the guise and color and in the name of the Queen City Street-Railway Company, which, complainant is informed and believes, and therefore charges, has no legal corporate existence, commenced the construction and building of a street-railway track on said Houston street, and is now prosecuting said work; that said Queen City Street-Railway Company filed articles of incorporation in the office of secretary of state of the state of Texas, as far back as October 20, 1881, but it never legally organized or took any steps to begin active operation to construct a line of railway until after said injunction was sued out as aforesaid; that at some time during the year 1887 said Queen City Railway

Company organized, or pretended to do so, by electing officers, the names of whom are unknown to complainant, except that P. M. Willing was elected president; Joe Mayer, treasurer; and J. C. Scott, secretary; and Theo. Vogel, David Boaz, P. M. Willing, and J. C. Scott, directors. That John Tierney is a stockholder in said Queen City Company; that said Theo. Vogel is secretary and treasurer of said Rosedale Street-Railway Company; that said Joe Mayer is treasurer of said Queen City Street-Railway Company; that said John Tierney is president of said Rosedale Street-Railway Company, and one of its directors, as well as a director of said Queen City Street-Railway Company; that said David Boaz is director of said Rosedale Street-Railway Company, as well as of said Queen City Railway Company; and that said John Tierney is a director of said Rosedale Street-Railway Company, as well as a stockholder of the Queen City Street-Railway Company. The complainant is informed, and believes, and so charges, that said Vogel, Boaz, Mayer, and Tierney own a majority of the stock of said Queen City Railway Company, and they are each large stockholders in said Rosedale Street-Railway Company; that before said work of constructing and building said street-railway track, on said Houston street as aforesaid, by said Rosedale Company, in the name of said Queen City Company, said Vogel, Boaz, Tierney, and Mayer each had notice of said injunction sued out by complainant against said Rosedale Street Railway as aforesaid; that the work of constructing and building said street-railway track,...