Northcutt v. Waren, 7152

Decision Date30 June 1959
Docket NumberNo. 7152,7152
Citation326 S.W.2d 10
PartiesOpal NORTHCUTT et vir., Appellants, v. Calloway WAREN et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Sanders & Stanford, C. L. Stanford, Canton, for appellants.

Enoch G. Fletcher, Grand Saline, for appellees.

DAVIS, Justice.

Plaintiff-appellees, Calloway Waren and Lois Brown, joined by her husband Leroy Brown, filed suit against appellant-defendants, Opal Northcutt and husband, Charlie Northcutt, for a right of way across a tract of land. In their pleadings, appellees alleged a right of way by proscription, and in their prayer they asked for an injunction, and in the alternative, for $500 damages.

On a hearing on their application for temporary injunction, the temporary injunction was granted. Appellants have perfected their appeal and bring forward three points of error. In their points 1 and 2, they complain of the action of the trial court in issuing the injunction in failing to set forth the reasons for the issuance of the order as required by the mandatory provisions of Rule 683, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In the case of Rothermel v. Goodrich, Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W.2d 882, n. w. h, the court held that the failure of the trial court to specifically set out the reasons for granting the injunction is fatal. Alexander Schroeder Lumber Co. v. Corona, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 829, wr. ref., n. r. e.; Hice v Cole, Tex.Civ.App., 295 S.W.2d 661, n. w. h. The points are sustained.

By point 3 appellant complains of the action of the trial court in granting a temporary injunction where there was no allegation or evidence that appellee had no adequate remedy at law. Suffice it to say that appellee only prayed that if the Northcutts continued to keep the gates closed across the road and by running a fence across the same, they would suffer irreparable damages. Yet, in their petition they show that a sum of $500 would compensate them. Upon a trial of the case it was shown that another road runs to the land of appellees and at most they could only suffer an injury of inconvenience. We feel that the granting of a temporary injunction on the pleadings was unwarranted. Coleman v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W.2d 270, n. w. h.; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. de Garcia, Tex.Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d 1006, n. w. h.

Another thing that leads this Court to believe that the trial court erred is the fact of the insufficiency of the description of the right of way. This is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Waymon Scott Hartwell & HHH Farms, LLC v. Star
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 2017
    ...Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 357–58 (Tex. Civ. App—San Antonio 1981, no writ) ; Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10, 10 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.).In this case, the trial court found in its order that the Appellants:• Have failed to remit proceeds ......
  • Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 1966
    ...for granting the injunction is fatal and requires reversal. Miller v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 305 S.W.2d 663, no wr. hist.; Northcutt v. Waren, Tex.Civ.App., 326 S.W.2d 10, wr. ref. n.r .e.; City of Houston v. Rose, Tex.Civ.App., 361 S.W.2d 477, no wr. In Miller v. State, supra, the temporary ......
  • Tex. Tech Univ. Health Sciences Ctr. v. Rao
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 2003
    ..."requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed." Id. at 641. Particularly citing Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1981, no......
  • State v. Cook United, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1971
    ...(Tex.Civ.App.1962, writ ref'd, n.r.e.); City of Houston v. Rose, 361 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App.1962, no writ); Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App.1959, writ ref'd, n.r.e.); Miller v. State, 305 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.Civ.App.1957, no writ); Gonzalez v. Rodriquez, 250 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.Civ.......
  • 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