Prater v. Storey
Citation | 249 S.W. 871 |
Decision Date | 01 March 1923 |
Docket Number | (No. 2703.) |
Parties | PRATER et al. v. STOREY. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Smith County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
Suit by Walter Storey against U. W. Prater and others for an injunction. A temporary injunction was granted, and defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.
The appeal is from an order of the district judge made at chambers granting a temporary injunction. The appellee filed a petition praying for an injunction restraining appellants, who are respectively the city manager, the city attorney, and the chief of police of the city of Tyler, from enforcing an order of the city manager suspending his license or permit to operate an automobile for hire. The petitioner claims interference in and deprivation of the right to the free pursuit of his business, predicated upon the invalidity of the ordinance herein below set out. The case was submitted to the judge on the petition and the answer.
It appears that the city of Tyler is a municipal corporation created and existing by virtue of the general laws of the state, having, on the 6th day of April, 1915, adopted a charter under the provisions of Acts 1913, p. 307 (Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 1096a-1096i). It has the commission form of government, with a city manager as the chief administrative officer. The charter, it appears, specially provides, among others, the following particular powers of the city of Tyler:
The charter further provides:
An ordinance duly adopted by the commission provided for and required the issuance, on payment of a specified sum of money, of a license, for the period of one year, to a person to operate an automobile for hire in the city of Tyler. The following ordinance was duly adopted by the commission:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woco Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery
... ... 95, 126 N.E. 456; State v ... Cote, 122 Me. 450, 120 A. 538; Mahaney v. Cisco ... [Tex.Civ.App.] 248 S.W. 420; Prather v. Storey ... [[[Tex.Civ.App.] 249 S.W. 871; 25 Cyc. 625; Fell v ... State, 42 Md. 71, 20 Am.Rep. 88; Cooley's Const ... Lim. [5th Ed.] 343; Pomeroy's ... ...
-
Texas Liquor Control Board v. Jones
...is not a cause of action within the meaning of the Constitution see: Hernandez v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W. 170; Prater v. Storey (Tex.Civ.App.) 249 S.W. 871; McCormick v. Jester, 53 Tex.Civ.App. 306, 115 S.W. 278; State ex rel. McNamara v. Clark, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 559, 187 S.W. 760; Kirklan......
-
Sherman v. State Board of Dental Examiners
...S.W. 368, 7 L.R.A. 797; Craven v. Bierring, 222 Iowa 613, 269 N.W. 801; State v. Clark, 79 Tex. Cr.R. 559, 187 S.W. 760; Prater v. Storey, Tex.Civ.App., 249 S.W. 871. The specific questions presented in this appeal have not been decided by the Texas courts, but they have been passed upon by......
-
City of Dallas v. Rogers
...53 S.W.2d 294. Both of the above cases hold that the trial courts had improperly granted temporary injunctions. See also Prater v. Storey, Tex.Civ.App., 249 S.W. 871. Regardless of whether appellee Rogers, or the assistant market master McKinnon, was more to blame for the fight, the fact si......