International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Anderson County
Decision Date | 20 June 1912 |
Citation | 150 S.W. 239 |
Parties | INTERNATIONAL & G. N. RY. CO. v. ANDERSON COUNTY et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Anderson County; James I. Perkins, Judge.
Action by Anderson County and others against the International & Great Northern Railway Company. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendant appeals. Reformed and affirmed.
Wilson & Dabney, of Houston, and Williams & Steadman, of Austin, for appellant. A. G. Greenwood, Campbell, Sewell & Strickland, and Thos. B. Greenwood, all of Palestine, for appellees.
This appeal is from an order of the district judge for the Second judicial district, made in chambers and without notice to appellant or opportunity on its part to be heard, granting a temporary injunction prohibiting appellant from removing its machine shops, roundhouses, and the general offices of its superintendent of motive power and machinery and its master mechanic from the city of Palestine, and commanding it to keep and maintain all of its general offices for the operation of its railroad at the city of Palestine, and within 60 days from the date of said order to return to the city of Palestine such of its general offices as were then being kept in the cities of Houston, Tex., and New Orleans, La. The suit in which this injunction was granted was brought in the district court of Anderson county in the Third judicial district, by Anderson county, the city of Palestine, and a number of named citizens of said city who allege that they sue in behalf of themselves and of all other citizens of said city, plaintiffs, against the International & Great Northern Railway Company, defendant. The petition alleges:
After alleging the incorporation on October 22, 1866, by special act of the Legislature of Texas of the Houston & Great Northern Railroad, and the incorporation on August 5, 1870, by special act of said Legislature of the International Railroad Company, the first-named company having been chartered for the purpose of constructing and operating a railroad from the city of Houston northward to Red River, and the second for the purpose of constructing and operating a railroad from Red river across the state through the cities of Austin and San Antonio to the Rio Grande river, the petition contains the following allegations:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brownsville Shrimp Co. v. Miller, 11930.
...R.S. art. 1995, would have controlled. 24 Tex.Jur. 162; Lindley v. Easley, Tex.Civ.App., 59 S.W. 2d 927; International & G. N. v. Anderson County, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W. 239, affirmed 106 Tex. 60, 150 S.W. 499; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d Further arg......
-
Fielder v. Parker
...be returnable to and tried in the court where such suit is pending or such judgment was rendered," etc. International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Anderson County, Tex. Civ.App., 150 S.W. 239, 248; Royal Amusement Co. v. Columbia Piano Co., Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W. 278; McDade v. Vogel, Tex.Civ.App., 1......
-
Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. City of Ennis
...in equity for specific performance of the contract. Tyler v. Railway Co., 99 Tex. 491, 91 S. W. 1, 13 Ann. Cas. 911; Railway Co. v. Anderson County, 150 S. W. 239; Railway Co. v. Anderson County, 106 Tex. 60, 156 S. W. 499; Railway Co. v. Anderson County, 174 S. W. 305; Mosel v. Railway Co.......
-
Zachra v. American Manufacturing Company
...Co. v. Packing Co., 112 Mo.App. 271; Railroad v. Shirley, 20 Kan. 660; Kelly v. Mississippi Cr. Co., 1 F. 564; 10 Cyc. 145; Railroad v. Anderson Co., 150 S.W. 239; Forbes v. McDougle, 150 S.W. 745; R. S. 1909, 2978, 3021, 3339, 3037, 3360. (4) The judgment bars a subsequent action against e......