Owens v. Coker, 6651
| Decision Date | 30 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 6651,6651 |
| Citation | 368 S.W.2d 959 |
| Parties | Joe John OWENS et ux., Relators, v. Hon. Ernest COKER, District Judge, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J. Robert Liles, Houston, for relator.
W. C. McClain, Conroe, William S. Clarke, Houston, for respondent.
Respondents say this court erred in holding the injunction granted was a permanent one. Though the question is not free from doubt, we believe the decision made was correct. The following additional authorities are cited on the question: Riggins v. Thompson, 96 Tex. 154, 71 S.W. 14, holds that the class into which an injunction falls is determined by the judge's fiat; Ft. Worth Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. City of Ft. Worth, 106 Tex. 148, 158 S.W. 164, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 994, holds that a judgment granting an injunction is final when it leaves nothing to be further litigated in the case. See also 43 C.J.S. Injunctions Sec. 207, p. 935.
However, since we have held that the injunction granted in No. 6650, Owens v. Texaco Inc., et al., 368 S.W.2d 780 in an opinion this day announced should be modified so that it will be a temporary injunction as urged by relators therein, and, since it is the policy of the law not to grant supersedeas from an order issuing temporary injunction [see Rule 385, Sec. (d)], our former order provisionally issuing mandamus made herein is withdrawn and mandamus is denied. For the reasons explained in this paragraph, the motion for rehearing is granted. Costs of this proceeding are taxed against respondents Texaco Inc., Pitts and Cleveland Realty & Investment Company.
Relators' contention in their answer to respondents' motion for rehearing that the matters complained of are now moot, is overruled. The trial court's approval of supersedeas bond in this case since our original opinion herein does not make the question moot. This conclusion constitutes authority to trial court to expunge from the record approval of the supersedeas bond.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Lubbock v. Graham & Associates, Inc.
...Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. CIC Cosmetics International Corp., supra, or leaves nothing further to be litigated in the case. Owens v. Coker, 368 S.W.2d 959, 960 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1963, no Graham & Associates brought this suit to prevent the Zoning Board from revoking the building pe......
-
Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. CIC Cosmetics Int. Corp.
...further order of the court, then it is a permanent rather than a temporary injunction. Owens v. Coker, 368 S.W.2d 777, 780, on rehearing, 368 S.W.2d 959 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1963, no Nevertheless, an order granting a permanent injunction may be interlocutory rather than final if it does ......
-
Caldwell v. Kingsbery, 11735
...court need not grant supersedeas from an order issuing a temporary injunction. Such a matter is discretionary. Rule 385(d) T.R.C.P. Owens v. Coker, 368 S.W.2d 959 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1963, no writ); Oak Downs v. Watkins, 85 S.W.2d 1100 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 1935, no Appellant's ninth ......
-
Wesware, Inc. v. Blackwell, 12012
...court. Rule 385(d), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Oak Downs v. Watkins, 85 S.W.2d 1100 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1935, no writ); Owens v. Coker, 368 S.W.2d 959 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1963, no writ); Ralph Williams Gulfgate Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. State, 449 S.W.2d 139 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston ......