Lennox v. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n

• Decision Date: 12 March 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 3199.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL&gt
• Citation: 283 S.W. 619
• Parties: LENNOX et al. v. TEXAS FARM BUREAU COTTON ASS'N.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

283 S.W. 619

LENNOX et al. v. TEXAS FARM BUREAU COTTON ASS'N.

(No. 3199.)^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

March 12, 1926.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1926.

Appeal from District Court, Red River County; R. J. Williams, Judge.

Suit by H. H. Lennox and others against the Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Association, in which defendant filed a cross-action. From an order denying plaintiffs' motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, they appeal. Affirmed.

See, also, 257 S. W. 935.

The appeal is from an order of the court denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. On October 11, 1922, the appellants brought suit against the appellee association to recover damages for the alleged breach of contract, and for the annulment and cancellation of a marketing contract signed by them on June 30, 1921, upon the alleged grounds of fraudulent representations and statements inducing its execution. The association timely filed an answer, and also filed a cross-action. The cross-action set up the appellants' breach of the marketing agreement signed by them, and sought to recover damages accruing to the association by reason of such breach, and asked that appellants be compelled to perform their contract, and that, pending the hearing of the case upon its merits, the appellants be enjoined from disposing of their cotton contrary to their contract. On August 31, 1925, the court, on the cross-action, granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellants, and each of them, from "disposing of all or any part of the cotton produced or acquired by or for them and each of them during the year 1925, to any person or persons other than defendant herein." On November 24, 1925, the appellants filed a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. The appellee filed a demurrer to the motion, and for answer denied all the allegations in the motion. On December 17, 1925, the court heard the motion, and the demurrer was sustained. The appellants refused to amend their motion, and the motion to dissolve was then overruled.

Lennox & Lennox, of Clarksville, and J. Q. Mahaffey, of Texarkana, for appellants.

Robbins & Edwards, of Clarksville. Robert S. Marx, of Chicago, Ill., Long & Wortham, of Paris, Aaron Sapiro, of Chicago, Ill., and C. K. Bullard, of Dallas, for appellee.

LEVY, J. (after stating the facts as above).

We think the only question for consideration on this special appeal is whether the temporary injunction should have been continued to the final hearing on the merits. The cooperative marketing act of this state expressly authorizes the association and its members to make and execute marketing contracts like unto the contract set out and pleaded by both the appellants and appellee. By express terms of the act a temporary restraining order is allowable to the association pending the adjudication of an action against a member for breach or...