Gibbons v. Ross
Decision Date | 18 March 1914 |
Docket Number | (No. 6704.) |
Citation | 167 S.W. 17 |
Parties | GIBBONS v. ROSS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Robert G. Street, Judge.
Trespass to try title by J. T. Gibbons against J. H. Ross and others. From an order of the district court refusing plaintiff's prayer for a temporary injunction, plaintiff appeals. Reversed on rehearing, and judgment granting injunction rendered.
Hutcheson & Hutcheson, of Houston, for appellant. Maco & Minor Stewart, of Galveston, for appellees.
This appeal is from an order of the district court of Galveston county refusing appellant's prayer for a temporary injunction in a suit of trespass to try title and to remove cloud from title brought by appellant against the appellees. The land involved in the suit is described in the petition as a tract of "32 acres more or less, known and designated as lot 23 in subdivision C of the S. F. Austin and M. Muldoon grants of land in Galveston county, Texas, according to plat prepared by R. W. Lutterell for J. C. League in December, 1893." The defendants in the suit are J. H. Ross, Ira Bratton, and R. McGregor. In addition to the usual allegations in a suit of trespass to try title, the petition specially alleges facts relied on by plaintiff to show that the title asserted by defendants, who claim under a common source, is invalid; the facts so alleged being sufficient to defeat defendants' claim of title. The allegations of the petition, upon which the temporary injunction is sought, and the prayer for injunction are as follows:
This petition, which was sworn to by plaintiff, was presented to Hon. R. G. Street, judge of the district court of Galveston, on February 2, 1914. Upon consideration of the petition the judge granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the defendants from in any way disturbing or interfering with plaintiff's possession of the premises pending a hearing of the application for temporary injunction, which hearing was set for February 9, 1914.
On the day set for the hearing, the defendants appeared and filed answer containing general and special exceptions to plaintiff's petition, and special denials of most of the material allegations of the petition. They claim that the title to the land is in the defendant Ross, and specially deny under oath that plaintiff was in possession thereof and was ejected by defendants on July 1, 1913, as alleged in his petition. They aver in substance that defendant Ira Bratton was in possession of the land, holding same under a lease from the owner thereof, and, while so holding, plaintiff's tenant Kresse forcibly entered upon and took possession of a portion of said land; that said Bratton instituted a suit of forcible entry and detainer against Kresse and obtained judgment thereon, as alleged in plaintiff's petition. They specially deny that the said Bratton or the defendant Ross is insolvent, as alleged by plaintiff, and aver that Bratton is now the tenant of defendant Ross, who is the owner of said premises.
The application was heard upon the petition and answer and supporting affidavits introduced in evidence. Upon the hearing the court refused to grant plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, and dissolved the temporary restraining order theretofore granted. From this order plaintiff appealed to this court.
Upon application of plaintiff, after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cleveland v. Ward
...229 S. W. 896; Witherspoon v. Daviss (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 700; Hurley v. Buchanan (Tex. Civ. App.) 233 S. W. 590; Gibbons v. Ross (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 17; Cattlemen's Trust Co. v. Willis (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 1115; City of Houston v. City of Palestine, 114 Tex. 306, 267 S. ......
-
Madison v. Martinez
...so construe it when we granted the restraining order. Hubbart v. Willis State Bank, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 504, 119 S. W. 711; Gibbons v. Ross (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 17; Ford v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 209 S. W. 490; Moore v. McLennan County et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. Did the court err......
-
Wolf v. Young
...seems later to have adopted a contrary view. See Hubbart v. (Willis State) Bank, 55 Tex.Civ.App. 504, 119 S.W. 711, and Gibbons v. Ross, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W. 17, 18. In further support of our conclusion see WatersPierce Oil Co. v. State, 107 Tex. 1, 106 S.W. In Madison v. Martinez, 42 S.W......
-
Pendleton v. Crabtree, 5914.
...of Farmersville v. Texas-Louisiana Power Co., Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W. 2d 272; Vogelsang v. Gray, Tex.Civ.App., 224 S.W. 535; Gibbons v. Ross, Tex.Civ. App., 167 S.W. 17; Texas Land Company v. Turman, 53 Tex. 619. Some of the above authorities and others hold that the rights of the parties are......