Ramon v. Saenz

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Citation122 S.W. 928
PartiesRAMON v. SAENZ et al.
Decision Date24 November 1909

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; J. L. Camp, Judge.

Suit by Benito Ramon against Refugio T. Saenz and others. From a decree dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Geo. C. Altgelt, for appellant.

NEILL, J.

This suit was brought on the 15th day of last February by Benito Ramon against Refugio Terrasas Saenz, Marcos Saenz, and Cleofas Saenz for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiff in his use and possession of a certain tract of land, and to enjoin them from interfering with him in plowing and cultivating the land and planting such crop thereon as he might choose. A general demurrer was interposed by defendants to plaintiff's petition, which, upon final hearing, was sustained by the court; and, upon plaintiff's declining further to amend, a final decree was entered dismissing his suit. Plaintiff has appealed from the decree, and has assigned as error the ruling of the court sustaining the demurrer to his petition.

The allegations in the petition are substantially: That on the day his suit was filed he was in actual possession of certain real estate therein described, holding the same as the tenant of W. F. Miller, and had been in quiet, lawful, and peaceable possession thereof, using, enjoying, and cultivating the same for about six years prior to March 14, 1908; that on or about the last-named date plaintiff began to plow the land, seed it with corn and vegetables, when defendants threatened him with violence, threw stones at him, commanded him not to plant or seed the land, and threatened to pour hot water on him if he did not desist from working on said premises; that plaintiff verily believes that defendants will carry out their said threats and assault him if he should prosecute his said lawful work; that if the land is not planted with seed and properly cultivated at this time of the year (the time the suit was brought), it will be impossible for plaintiff to raise any crop upon it, because too late in the season; and that defendants are insolvent and unable to respond in damages. Then follows the prayer for the injunction. We are of the opinion that the assignment of error is well taken. The rule is well settled that where the conduct complained of will cause irreparable injury to property rights, for which there is no adequate redress in a court of law, equity may properly interfere by injunction, and the fact that the same acts are declared to be crimes by the law of the state, and are punishable as such, constitute no defense to issuing the writ of injunction. Under such circumstances the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Eckdahl v. Hurwitz
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 11 Junio 1940
    ...or business. R. R. Co. v. Atlanta (Ga.) 45 S.E. 256; Hasbrouck v. Bondurant et al., 56 S.E. 241; Bryan v. Mayor, 45 So. 922; Ramon v. Saenz, 122 S.W. 928; Mine Company Richardson, 194 F. 198; Mfg. Company v. Cruse, 66 So. 657; Rogers v. Nevada Canal Co., 151 P. 923; Hearld v. Glendale Lodge......
  • Southern Traffic Bureau v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 21 Junio 1950
    ...Hughes, 133 Tex. 505, 129 S.W.2d 270; Ex parte Allison, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 90 S.W. 492, 13 Ann.Cas. 684, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 622; Ramon v. Saenz, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W. 928; Featherstone v. Independent Service Station Ass'n of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 124. The holding in the McCloskey case ......
  • Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. Sloman
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 13 Marzo 1917
    ...Co. v. Sims, 82 S. W. 531; Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 83 S. W. 855; Ry. Co. v. Rollins, 89 S. W. 1099; Landrum v. Stewart, 111 S. W. 769; Ramon v. Saenz, 122 S. W. 928; Sievert v. Underwood, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 421, 124 S. W. 721; Ball v. Water Corporation, 127 S. W. 1068; Trezevant & Cochran v. Powel......
  • Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Nemer
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 10 Mayo 1929
    ...S. W. 1099; Brackenridge v. Claridge (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S. W. 1005; Landrum v. Stewart (Tex. Civ. App.) 111 S. W. 769; Ramon v. Saenz (Tex. Civ. App.) 122 S. W. 928; Trezevant & Cochran v. R. H. Powell & Co., 61 Tex. Civ. App. 449, 130 S. W. 234; Gibbens v. Bourland (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S.......

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