Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co.

Decision Date17 April 1918
Docket Number(No. 2963.)
Citation202 S.W. 725
PartiesHOUSTON OIL CO. OF TEXAS v. VILLAGE MILLS CO.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Suit for injunction by the Houston Oil Company of Texas against the Village Mills Company. From an order granting a writ in chambers without a hearing, defendant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals (191 S. W. 723), where the order was reversed, and the injunction dissolved. Plaintiff brings error. Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and order of district court affirmed.

See, also, 186 S. W. 785.

H. O. Head, of Sherman, and Kennerly, Williams, Lee & Hill and Oswald S. Parker, all of Houston, for plaintiff in error. W. D. Gordon, H. G. Russell, Thos. J. Baten, H. M. Whitaker, and E. E. Easterling, all of Beaumont, for defendant in error.

PHILLIPS, C. J.

The Houston Oil Company of Texas filed in the District Court of Hardin County in the Ninth District an action against the Village Mills Company for a certain league of land in that county. It was successful upon the trial and obtained judgment for the land. The defendant appealed. The appeal is as yet undetermined. Following the appeal, the Oil Company presented to Judge Llewellyn, Judge of the District Court of Hardin County in the Seventy-Fifth District its petition for an injunction against the same defendant to restrain it from cutting the timber from the land and interfering with the plaintiff's possession pending the final decision of the suit for the land. The injunction was granted in chambers without a hearing. On the defendant's appeal the order was reversed and the injunction dissolved by the honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Ninth District.

It is urged by the defendant in error that the Judge of the Seventy-Fifth District Court was without jurisdiction to issue the injunction because of the jurisdiction of the Ninth District Court over the suit for the land and the pendency of the appeal from the judgment there rendered. There is, in our opinion, no doubt as to the power of the District Judge to grant the injunction. This is not a suit for the land, nor does it at all involve the title to the land. The subject-matter is distinct. It is merely a proceeding to prevent waste upon the land and to preserve its condition pending the final determination of the rights of the parties by restraining the defendant from appropriating to itself at an intermediate stage of the controversy that which according to the allegations of the petition chiefly gives it value. Only a provisional injunction of such duration was sought or granted. That it works no invasion of the jurisdiction of the Ninth District Court over the action for the land and will not interfere with the full exercise of the Court of Civil Appeals' power over the appeal, is apparent. The statute (Article 4643) declares that the Judges of the District Courts may grant writs of injunction:

"Where, pending litigation, it shall be made to appear that a party doing some act respecting the subject of litigation, or threatens or is about to do some act or is procuring or suffering the same to be done in violation of the rights of the applicant, which act would tend to render judgment ineffectual."

This provision contemplates such situations as that here presented, and plainly conferred upon the District Judge the power exercised.

The petition for the injunction clearly alleged the plaintiff's assertion in good faith of its claim of title to the land; its actual possession of it for more than ten years; the judgment for the land rendered in its favor against the defendant; the threat of the defendant to cut the timber from the land, notwithstanding the adverse judgment and the absence of any final adjudication that it was entitled to it; and that it was the timber which chiefly gave the land its value. Such being the allegations, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the judge in issuing the injunction. The facts stated were sufficient to create an independent equity in favor of the plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Priddy v. Business Men's Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 1922
    ...66 Tex. 13, 17 S. W. 115; McNeill v. Masterson, 79 Tex. 670, 15 S. W. 673, at page 674, bottom first column; Houston Oil Co. v. Village Mill Co., 109 Tex. 169, 202 S. W. 725, 226 S. W. 1075. Some of the Courts of Civil Appeals hold to the above rule as prevailing in Texas. Goggan v. Morriso......
  • Davis v. Gillen, 4658
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 1949
    ...restraint imposed on the defendants was authorized by Subdiv. 2 of Art. 4642, R.S.1925, as construed in Houston Oil Co. ov Texas v. Village Mills Co., 109 Tex. 169, 202 S.W. 725, 226 S.W. This decision, in contrast with defendants' argument that damages is an adequate remedy, gives legal si......
  • Fulmore v. Benson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 15, 1923
    ...issue: Standefer v. Aultman, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 160, 78 S. W. 552; Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334, 18 L. Ed. 257; Houston Oil Co. v. Village Mills Co., 109 Tex. 169, 202 S. W. 725, 226 S. W. 1075; Priddy v. Business Men's Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 774, affirmed (Tex. Com. App.) 250 S.......
  • Frost v. Mischer
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1971
    ...to a suit in trespass to try title or other action for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. See, Houston Oil Co. v. Village Mills Co., 109 Tex. 169, 202 S.W. 725 (1918); Taylor v. Gulf Oil Corp., 303 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App.1957, no writ); Davis v. Gillen, 227 S.W.2d 834 (Tex.Civ.App.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT