Hovey v. Shepherd
| Decision Date | 22 May 1912 |
| Parties | HOVEY et al. v. SHEPHERD, Judge. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
H. S. Garrett, of San Angelo, Higgins, Hamilton & Taylor, of Snyder, Wright, Wynn & Bartholomew and Blanks, Collins & Jackson, all of San Angelo, and Spoonts, Thompson & Barwise, of Ft. Worth, for relators. Beall & Beall, of Sweetwater, R. C. Crane and Stephens & Miller, all of Ft. Worth, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in this court wherein relators seek to have a writ of prohibition issued to respondent, James L. Shepherd, Judge of the Thirty-Second judicial district of Texas, commanding him to desist from further interference with or hindrance to the enforcement of a judgment of this court, entered on May 31, 1911, in a cause then pending in this court, No. 2,212, Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Company of Texas v. City of Sweetwater, which by writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District had been removed into this court for revision. The said railroad company had been by a writ of injunction granted by respondent Shepherd forbidden to remove its offices, shops, etc., from Sweetwater to San Angelo. The injunction was made perpetual by the judgment of the district court of Scurry county (the venue having been changed), which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District (131 S. W. 251). This court reversed the judgments of the district court and the Court of Civil Appeals (137 S. W. 1117), and rendered judgment that the city of Sweetwater take nothing, and that the railroad company and the other plaintiffs in error go hence without day, etc. The motion for rehearing was filed in this court on the 15th day of June, 1911, and was overruled on the 25th day of that month. On the 6th day of June, 1911, interveners S. A. Cole, R. A. Ragland, J. H. Beall, and Ellis Douthit filed a petition in the district court of Nolan county against the relators in this proceeding, praying for a writ of injunction forbidding them to remove the offices, etc., before described, from the city of Sweetwater, and on the same day Hon. James L. Shepherd granted the writ without a hearing. Relators moved to dissolve the injunction which motion the judge overruled, from which order relators appealed to the honorable Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District, which court reversed the interlocutory judgment and dissolved the injunction. The case was remanded to the district court of Nolan county. The plaintiffs in that suit (interveners) gave notice to relators to appear before Hon. James L. Shepherd on the 18th day of April, 1912, to answer another application for a writ of injunction to the same purpose as that dissolved, whereupon the relators applied to this court for a writ of prohibition to prohibit and forbid the said James L. Shepherd, and the interveners herein, to hinder or prevent the railroad company or its officers to remove said shops, etc., as by the judgment of this court the railroad company was authorized to do.
The authority of this court to issue the writ is conferred by this provision in the third section of article 5 of our state Constitution: "The Supreme Court and the justices thereof shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus as may be prescribed by law, and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law the said court and the justices thereof may issue the writs of mandamus, procedendo, certiorari, and such other writs as may be necessary to enforce its jurisdiction." It is unnecessary for us to look carefully for the need of such process in this case, for the action of the plaintiffs in the new suit in seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the judgment of this court while that case was yet under our control manifesting a disregard of and contempt for law, and the swift compliance of the judge in granting the injunction without a hearing, were sufficient to admonish this court that its authority must be exercised promptly and firmly to maintain the dignity of the state's judiciary. The writ of prohibition is the only effective preventive remedy appropriate to the conditions which confront us; therefore, we have authority to use it to guard and enforce our jurisdiction. This court will not issue the writ, notwithstanding the hasty and unlawful action of respondent, unless the facts and law establish beyond a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleveland v. Ward
...and injunction, to protect and make efficacious the exercise of that power by us. State Constitution, art. 5, § 3; Hovey v. Shepherd, 105 Tex. 237, 147 S. W. 224; City of Houston v. City of Palestine, 114 Tex. 306, 267 S. W. 663; Wells v. Littlefield, 62 Tex. 30, 31. This power to issue all......
-
State v. Clark
...Our own courts have had this question before them, and followed the rule announced in the above opinions. In the case of Hovey v. Shepherd, 105 Tex. 239, 147 S. W. 224, Chief Justice Brown, in speaking for the court, in construing the authority of the Supreme Court under article 5, § 3, of ......
-
Richardson v. Kelly
...in which all of the members had a common interest, and was therefore the proper subject of a class action. See also Hovey v. Shepherd, 105 Tex. 237, 147 S.W. 224; City of Dallas v. Armour & Co., Tex.Civ. App., 216 S.W. 222. It will be observed that each of the above cases involved the right......
-
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Intern. Airlines, Inc.
...Boyd, Tex.Civ.App. 1930, 26 S.W.2d 364, other Texas cases analyze similar situations without reference to the doctrine. Hovey v. Shepard, 1912, 105 Tex. 237, 147 S.W. 224; City of Palestine v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App. 1924, 262 S.W. 215. The commentators also do not agree on the essenc......
-
An historical analysis of the binding effect of class suits.
...privity with the city officers, and therefore any "litigation, decision, and judgment" was binding on that taxpayer); Hovey v. Shepherd, 147 S.W. 224, 225 (Tex. 1912) (holding that if the matter adjudicated was in the "interest of the public" then all citizens were bound by the (292) See Pe......