Godley v. Duval County, 14055
| Citation | 361 S.W.2d 629 |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 14055,14055 |
| Parties | G. W. GODLEY, Appellant, v. DUVAL COUNTY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Perkins, Floyd, Davis & Oden, Alice, for appellant.
Lloyd, Lloyd & Dean, Parker Ellzey, Alice, for appellees.
Appellant, G. W. Godley, a taxpayer of Duval County, filed suit against appellees, Duval County, the County Judge, the County Commissioners, and Troy Carey, a county road supervisor, to enjoin the use of county labor, equipment and materials for private purposes. The trial court denied the temporary injunction and appellant appealed from that order.
The sole question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the temporary injunction. The purpose of the issuance of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo in regard to the matter in controversy or prevent irreparable injury or damage to applicant pending final determination of the case on its merits. Ordinarily, it is not a substitute for, nor does it serve the same purpose as, the hearing on the merits. Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones, 160 Tex. 104, 327 S.W.2d 417; West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Hardin County, 159 Tex. 374, 321 S.W.2d 576; Miller v. Texsteam Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 327 S.W.2d 465.
It is well settled that the granting or refusing of a temporary injunction is subject to a very different character of appellate review from that of a permanent injunction. The trial court is clothed with broad discretion in determining whether to issue a temporary injunction to preserve the rights of the parties pending a final trial of the case, and this discretion should not be overturned unless the record discloses a clear abuse. Texas Foundries v. International Moulders & Foundry Workers' Union, 151 Tex. 239, 248 S.W.2d 460.
The County Commissioners are not authorized to permit the use of county labor, materials or equipment for other than public use. Ex parte Conger, Tex., 357 S.W.2d 741; Rowan v. Pickett, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 734. This same rule applies to county employees, regardless of the motives or whether a profit is made. Appellant's right as a taxpayer to enjoin such use is well recognized. City of Austin v. McCall, 95 Tex. 565, 68 S.W. 791; Terrell v. Middleton, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W. 367.
The trial court did not file findings of fact or conclusions of law. We therefore must examine all the evidence from the viewpoint that all disputed facts were found in a manner to support the order of the trial court. In addition to his duties as county road supervisor, Carey...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panola County Com'rs Court v. Bagley
...fully developed as to under what circumstances it was done, and it all appears to be completed acts in the past. In Godley v. Duval County, Tex.Civ.App., 361 S.W.2d 629, wherein a temporary injunction seeking to restrain county officials from using county equipment, labor and materials for ......
-
Coastal Bend Milk Producers Ass'n v. Garcia
...v. Jones, 160 Tex. 104, 327 S.W.2d 417; West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Hardin County, 159 Tex. 374, 321 S.W.2d 576; Godley v. Duval County, Tex.Civ.App., 361 S.W.2d 629. In Texas Foundaries, Inc. v. International Moulders & Foundry Workers' Union, 151 Tex. 239, 248 S.W.2d 460, our Supreme......
-
Public Utility Com'n v. Water Services, Inc., 14477
...of the appeal but is merely addressing the applicant's right to a provisional remedy pending a hearing on the merits. See Godley v. Duval County, 361 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Civ.App.1962, no writ); Anderson v. Tall Timbers Corp., 162 Tex. 450, 347 S.W.2d 592, 594 (1961), ["This opinion is not to be......
-
Callahan v. Lipscomb
...determination of the case on its merits. Janus Films, Inc. v. City of Fort Worth, 163 Tex. 616, 358 S.W.2d 589 (1962); Godley v. Duval County, Tex.Civ.App., 361 S.W.2d 629, no writ. Where the pleadings and the evidence present a case of probable right and probable injury, the trial court is......