McCloskey v. San Antonio Traction Co.
Decision Date | 07 February 1917 |
Docket Number | (No. 5799.) |
Citation | 192 S.W. 1116 |
Parties | McCLOSKEY v. SAN ANTONIO TRACTION CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. F. Ezell, Judge.
Suit by the San Antonio Traction Company against Frank P. McCloskey. From a temporary restraining order against defendant, he appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
R. H. Ward, J. F. Carl, Jno. H. Bickett, Jr., and P. H. Swearingen, Jr., all of San Antonio, for appellant. Templeton, Brooks, Napier & Ogden, of San Antonio, for appellee.
The San Antonio Traction Company, appellee, filed this suit against Frank P. McCloskey, appellant, to have him restrained by temporary and permanent injunction from pursuing the business of claim adjuster. The detailed methods by which appellant conducted the business are alleged in appellee's petition. The allegations, relevant to the questions we consider conclusive of this case, are substantially these:
"In the conduct of its [appellee's] said business and in the operation of its said street railway system as is necessarily incident in carrying on such business accidents occur in which passengers on plaintiff's cars and travelers on the streets are involved; that said accidents may, and frequently do, result in claims of injury to the persons involved; that many claims for injuries sustained in such accidents, and for alleged injuries sustained in alleged accidents, are presented against plaintiff [appellee], and many suits for such damages are filed against plaintiff [appellee] on account of such injuries and alleged injuries; that the costs and expenses to plaintiff of investigating, handling, settling, and defending such claims and suits is approximately * * * $1,000,000 per annum; that the said costs and expenses are greatly, unnecessarily, wrongfully, and unlawfully increased by the acts and practices of defendant [appellant] as hereinafter set out." The pro rata of the $1,000,000 above mentioned, incurred by reason of the practices of appellant, it is alleged, will be in excess of ten thousand dollars unless appellant is restrained. Appellant's business is that of a common barrator soliciting and stirring up claims and suits for unliquidated damages for personal injuries against appellee, soliciting and stirring up vexatious and speculative litigation based on such claims. Appellant The appellant
And appellee closed his petition with the prayer that appellant be notified to appear and show cause why a writ of injunction should not be granted, restraining him from each and all of the acts and practices herein above set out. Appellant's answer consisted of a general demurrer, several special exceptions, a general denial, and special admissions. After hearing the evidence, the court made the following order:
"It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the clerk of this court be and he is hereby directed, on the filing by the plaintiff of a bond herein in the sum of $5,000, conditioned and payable as required by law, to issue a writ of injunction against the defendant, F. P. McCloskey, enjoining and restraining him, his agents, servants, and employés, during the pendency of this suit, from soliciting, inciting, or inducing, or attempting to induce, any person or persons to present claims or bring suits for unliquidated damages against the plaintiff, and from soliciting, inciting, or inducing any person or persons to turn over their claims for such damages to him, or to employ him in connection therewith, and from soliciting, inciting, or inducing any person or persons to present exaggerated or fraudulent claims for such damages against the plaintiff, or to conceal the true character or nature of their condition, and from buying or offering to buy any such claim from any person or persons unsolicited by such person, and from offering any money or other thing of value to any person as an inducement to such person to employ him to represent such person in such claim or suit against plaintiff, unless such person shall first go to defendant and request him to represent him in such claim or suit, and from interfering with settlements between plaintiff and persons having claims against it, and from attempting to prevent such person or persons from making settlement with plaintiff."
From this temporary restraining order this appeal is taken.
The evidence introduced at the hearing is fairly summarized by the trial judge in his terse, lucid, and able opinion, as follows:
The controlling question presented for our determination is this: Do the allegations in appellee's petition authorize an injunction?
We will say, incidentally, that the order made by the court was probably not in all respects supported by appellee's pleading. For example: The order restrains appellant from soliciting, inciting, or inducing any person * * * to present * * * fraudulent claims, * * * or to conceal the true character or nature of their condition. The only allegation in the petition that might have been construed to support the last-stated portion of the order is this:
"Many of such claims so presented are what is known as `blind claims'; that is, claims concerning which plaintiff [appellee] knows nothing and can learn nothing; * * * in a great many of them there appears to be no real basis of the claim of liability."
Neither the allegation that appellee knows nothing of the claim, nor the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mallios v. Baker
...of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes). 4. 11 S.W.3d at 171 (Hecht, J., concurring). 5. See McCloskey v. San Antonio Traction Co., 192 S.W. 1116, 1119-20 (Tex. Civ. App.-- San Antonio 1917, writ ref'd). 6. New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. McCann, 707 N.E.2d 332, 337 (Mass. 7. 11 S.W.3d at 160 (Hecht......
-
Southern Traffic Bureau v. Thompson
...At one time the barratry law was applicable only to attorneys at law. This defect was pointed out by this Court in McCloskey v. San Antonio Traction Co., 192 S.W. 1116, and remedied by the Legislature. McCloskey v. San Antonio Public Service Company, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 1088. In Pelton ......
-
Nguyen v. Watts
...employment.’ " State v. Mays , 967 S.W.2d 404, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (quoting McCloskey v. San Antonio Traction Co. , 192 S.W. 1116, 1119 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1917, writ ref'd) ). Currently, Penal Code Section 38.12 governs the criminal offense of barratry, providing, in rele......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kelly
...creditor, Kelly, with an agreement to share certain expenses. This she had a right to do. McCloskey v. San Antonio Traction Co., 192 S.W. 1116, 1119, 1120 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1917, writ ref'd); Galveston H & S A Railroad Co. v. Ginther, 96 Tex. 295, 72 S.W. 166 (1903); Fort Worth & D......