A. M. Servicing Corp. of Dallas v. State, 16381
| Decision Date | 05 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 16381,16381 |
| Citation | 380 S.W.2d 747 |
| Parties | A. M. SERVICING CORP. OF DALLAS et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Bloch & Walton, Corpus Christi, Johnson, Guthrie, White & Stanfield and Robert M. Greenberg, Dallas, for appellants.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., A. D. Jim Bowie, Ted Z. Robertson and James M. Williamson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting the State of Texas a temporary injunction against A. M. Servicing Corporation of Dallas and others, enjoining them, in specific terms as hereinafter set forth, from violating Art. 286a, Vernon's Ann.Penal Code, known as the Sunday Closing Law.
Section 1 of that statute prohibits the sale or offering for sale, on both the two consecutive days of Saturday and Sunday, of certain specified items of merchandise.
Section 4a of that Act is as follows:
'When a purchaser will certify in writing that a purchase of an item of personal property is needed as an emergency for the welfare, health or safety of human or animal life and such purchase is an emergency purchase to protect the health, welfare or safety of human or animal life, then this Act shall not apply; provided such certification signed by the purchaser is retained by the merchant for proper inspection for a period of one (1) year.'
There is no statement of facts in the record presented in this court. The transcript contains the original petition for injunction, wherein it is alleged that the defendants have offered for sale and sold on both of two consecutive days of Saturday and Sunday certain of the items of merchandise listed in Section 1 of the statute, and have indicated that they will continue to do so; also the answer wherein the defendants allege compliance with the Act by requiring of each purchaser of the prohibited items a certificate in writing that the purchase is needed as an emergency for the health, welfare or safety of human or animal life.
The order granting the temporary injunction contains findings that the defendants have offered for sale and sold on both the two consecutive days of Saturday and Sunday items of merchandise listed in Section 1 of the Act in question, that they have sold and offered for sale such merchandise in violation of the statute in such manner as to constitute such operation a public nuisance, and that they have not exempted themselves under Section 4a of the Act, 'because purchasers did not certify in writing, as to articles purchased on the Sunday following the sales of such articles on Saturday as required by Section 4a, the Court interpreting and finding as a matter of law that as used in the context of Article 286a, Penal Code, 'will certify in writing' means the purchaser must verify or attest under oath that the articles of personal property are needed as an emergency for the welfare, health, or safety, of human or animal life.'
That part of the order actually granting the injunction is as follows:
'THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Clerk of this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.H.A., In Interest of
...guise of construction, amend a statute by adding words to it, no matter how desirable such additions might seem. A.M. Servicing Corp. of Dallas v. State, 380 S.W.2d 747, 748 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1964, no writ). In short, the courts may not usurp the power of the legislature by reading into......
-
Hunter v. Fort Worth Capital Corp.
...set out. Courts must not look elsewhere than to the language of the statute to ascertain its intent. In A. M. Servicing Corp. of Dallas v. State of Texas, 380 S.W.2d 747, 748 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1964, no writ), the court (C)ourts may not, under the guise of construction, amend a statute by......
-
Prewitt and Sampson v. City of Dallas
...guise of construction, amend a statute by adding words to it, no matter how desirable such additions might seem, A.M. Servicing Corp. of Dallas v. State, 380 S.W.2d 747, 748 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1964, no writ), and we may not usurp the power of the legislature by reading into a statute lan......
-
Offenbach v. Stockton
...the exceptions may seem. See Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex.1995); A.M. Servicing Corp. of Dallas v. State, 380 S.W.2d 747, 748 (Tex.Civ. App.-Dallas 1964, no We conclude that Stockton did not serve an expert report in compliance with former se......