Lytle v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.

Decision Date06 December 1905
Citation90 S.W. 316
PartiesLYTLE et al. v. GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Edward Dwyer, Judge,

Action by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company against W. J. Lytle and others. Judgment for plaintiffs. Proceeding for contempt of court against W. J. Lytle and another. Respondents adjudged guilty and sentenced to pay a fine.

This is a proceeding instituted in this court by appellees against Robert Reid and W. J. Lytle to punish them for contempt of this court for violating, pending appeal, a decree of injunction rendered in this case by the district court. On June 28, 1905, the district court of Bexar county, Thirty-Seventh judicial district of the state of Texas, in cause No. 17,124, styled "Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. et al. v. W. J. Lytle," then pending in said court, entered a final decree perpetually enjoining the defendants, one of whom is the respondent W. J. Lytle, their agents, servants, and employés from interfering with plaintiff's, one of whom is the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, business in buying, selling, exchanging or otherwise dealing in any ticket, certificate, advertising contract, or pass, or the return portions thereof, of any of said evidences of a right to transportation over the roads or any part thereof of any the plaintiffs, when such ticket, certificate, advertising contract, pass or any other evidence of the right of transporation either by the terms thereof, is nontransferable, on which is printed, written, or stamped upon any portion thereof the words "nontransferable," or equivalent words. The decree further provides that "this injunction shall apply to all classes of tickets and other evidence of the right of transportation, issued at a reduced rate, already issued, or to be issued in the future, whereon is printed, marked, written, or stamped, upon any portion thereof the words "nontransferable" or equivalent words, whether specifically named herein or not, as well as to the following, all nontransferable passes of every kind and character, all nontransferable advertising contracts of transportation, or nontransferable homeseekers tickets, mileage tickets, tourists tickets, commutation tickets, or San Antonio Carnival, Battle of Flowers, San Jacinto Day tickets, San Antonio International Fair tickets, Rough Riders' Reunion tickets, immigrant or emigrant tickets, tickets to teachers' associations and conventions, church conventions of all denominations, Sunday school conventions of all denominations, medical associations and conventions of all kinds and characters, meetings of all Masonic orders, all Knights of Pythias, Elks, Woodmen of the World, Odd Fellows, Hoo Hoo or Black Cat, Knights of Columbus, and all meetings of all secret orders of all kinds and characters, whether mentioned herein or not, all conventions of Builders' Exchanges, Federation of Women's Clubs, Daughters of the Confederacy, Confederate Veterans, tickets to all points where are being held state and county fairs, live stock associations, live stock shows, circus, saengerfest, all musical and educational conventions, Labor Day celebrations, political conventions, tickets for winter tourists in Texas, summer tourists from Texas, Christmas holidays to Texas, Fourth of July excursions, school conventions of all kinds and characters, tickets to places where there are theatrical entertainments, farmers' congresses, land seekers to Texas, sheriffs' conventions, county judges' conventions, district and county...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Red River Valley Brick Corporation v. City of Grand Forks
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1914
    ...1108, 4 Ann. Cas. 229; Ft. Worth Fair Asso. v. Ft. Worth Driving Club, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 121 S.W. 213; Lytle v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. 41 Tex. Civ. App. 112, 90 S.W. 316; Union Sawmill Co. v. Felsenthal Land & Townsite 84 Ark. 494, 106 S.W. 676; Sheridan v. Reese, 121 La. 226, 46......
  • Kimbrough v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 29, 1940
    ...of the appeal? The cases relied upon by the State to support an affirmative answer to that question are Lytle v. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 41 Tex.Civ.App. 112, 90 S.W. 316; Ex Parte Travis, 123 Tex. 480, 73 S.W.2d 487; State v. Malone, Tex.Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 163; to which we may add, as at le......
  • Ex parte Sutherland
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 17, 1974
    ...it cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. Ex parte Kimberlin, supra; Ex parte Westbrook, supra; Lytle v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 41 Tex.Civ.App. 112, 90 S.W. 316 (1905, no writ). If relator desired to question the correctness of that judgment his remedy was by appeal, an......
  • Garza v. Fleming, 13451
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1959
    ...or order is absolutely void. If the court had jurisdiction to render the order, the attack will fail. Lytle v. Galveston H. & S. A. R. Co., 41 Tex.Civ.App. 112, 90 S.W. 316; Ex parte Warfield, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 413, 50 S.W. 933; Ex parte Cash, 50 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 99 S.W. 1118, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 304; ......
  • 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