Hill v. Halliburton
| Decision Date | 27 March 1903 |
| Citation | 73 S.W. 21 |
| Parties | HILL et al. v. HALLIBURTON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
O'Brien, John & O'Brien, for applicants. E. C. McLean, for respondents.
George A. Hill and others have filed in this court an application for an injunction against the Honorable W. H. Pope, judge of the Fifty-Eighth Judicial District, B. Boykin, the clerk of said district court, and J. A. Paulhamus, who had been appointed by said judge as receiver of certain property involved in a suit in said court by an interlocutory order entered therein, from disregarding the appeal of the applicants from said order and interfering with said property. Applicants averred that they had excepted to the order appointing the receiver, and had perfected an appeal therefrom, and superseded the same by filing a bond in an amount fixed by the judge, and that upon a motion filed by the plaintiffs in the court below the judge was about to order the approval of the district clerk erased from said bond, and to declare the same annulled and of no effect. A preliminary writ was granted, and the respondents were cited to show cause why it should not be made final. The application for the restraining order of this court and the answers of the respondents, so far as need be stated for the purpose of disposing of the matter before the court, show that the respondents brought suit in said district court against the applicants for the conversion of certain petroleum oil described in the petition and for an injunction restraining them from disposing of the same and for the appointment of a receiver; that on January 12, 1903, the district judge granted a preliminary injunction as prayed for, and notice was ordered to the defendants to appear before the judge in chambers at a time fixed, and show cause why the injunction should not be made permanent, and a receiver appointed, as prayed for in the petition. Upon the hearing in accordance with said notice the judge finally entered an order appointing the respondent J. A. Paulhamus as receiver of said property, and said Paulhamus at once qualified by executing a bond in the amount fixed by the court, and taking the oath prescribed by law. Possession of the property was at once surrendered to him by the defendants. The defendants excepted to said order of the court appointing a receiver, and gave notice of appeal therefrom. The judge fixed the amount of a supersedeas bond at the sum of $100,000. The defendants presented a bond to the clerk, which was accepted and approved and filed by him. It is shown by the answer of the Honorable W. H. Pope that the amount of the supersedeas bond was fixed by the court on hearing of a motion filed by the defendants to have the same fixed; and that when the same was granted and the amount fixed it was further ordered that the bond should be presented to the court for its approval,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houtchens v. Mercer, 1420-5683.
...many cases that where the statute prescribes no bond, then it is proper and necessary for the court to fix the bond. Hill v. Halliburton, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 22, 73 S. W. 21. See note 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) page 316 (1909). The principle of judicial discretion does not apply in this sort of case......
-
Herd v. Home Nat. Bank
...K. & T. Ry. Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 648, 53 S. W. 837, 57 S. W. 336; Cruger v. McCracken, 87 Tex. 584, 30 S. W. 537; Hill v. Halliburton, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 21, 73 S. W. 21; Seiter v. Marschall et al., 105 Tex. 205, 147 S. W. 226; Webster v. I. & G. N. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 295; ......
-
Roberson v. Keck
...v. M., K. & T. Ry., 21 Tex.Civ.App. 648, 53 S.W. 837, 57 S.W. 336; Cruger v. McCracken, 87 Tex. 584, 30 S.W. 537; Hill v. Halliburton, 32 Tex.Civ.App. 21, 73 S.W. 21; Seiter v. Marschall, 105 Tex. 205, 147 S.W. 226; Webster v. I. & G. N. Ry. (Tex. Civ.App.) 184 S.W. 295; Harris v. Hopson, 5......
-
Lawler v. Wray
...App.) 40 S. W. 1030; People's Cemetery Ass'n v. Oakland Cemetery Ass'n, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 668, 60 S. W. 679, 680; Hill v. Halliburton, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 21, 73 S. W. 21, 22. No case has been cited herein where the right to supersede a final judgment of the trial court pending appeal was Res......