Robertson v. Economy Plumbing Co.
Decision Date | 11 February 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 7321.) |
Parties | ROBERTSON et al. v. ECONOMY PLUMBING CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; S. G. Tayloe, Judge.
Action by the Economy Plumbing Company and others against A. J. Robertson and others. Plaintiffs were granted a temporary writ of injunction, and defendants appeal. Reversed, writ dissolved, and cause remanded.
U. S. Algee, Thos. Y. Banks, and Huson & Huson, all of San Antonio, for appellants.
Ben H. Kelly and E. B. Cocke, both of San Antonio, for appellees.
Harry C. Martin and E. J. Rohm, doing business under the style of Economy Plumbing Company, Albert Halbardier, Hilton T. Howell, and Otto J. Locloff, the appellees herein, instituted an action against A. J. Robertson, Frank S. Huson, Byron J. Nankervis, Hobart Huson, Edward Snyder, and G. H. Nagel, alleging that Snyder and Nagel were indebted to Albert Halbardier in the sum of $125, to Hilton T. Howell in the sum of $340, to Martin and Rohm in the sum of $355.55, and to Locloff in the sum of $200, and that appellees have a lien on certain real estate which appellants have advertised for sale through Frank S. Huson as trustee, and will thereby prevent the collection of appellees' debts. It is unnecessary to enter into the voluminous details upon which appellees base an application to appoint a receiver of the properties and administer the same, and prayed for an injunction to restrain the sale of the property. The court set down the cause for a hearing as to granting a receiver, giving notice of the same and issued a temporary writ of injunction to restrain the sale of the property. From that order A. J. Robertson, Frank S. Huson, and Hobart Huson prosecuted this appeal, and out of the action of the court have formulated for presentation in this court 27 assignments, to show that the temporary writ of injunction should not have been granted.
The affidavit fails to show which of the facts alleged are within his knowledge, and consequently it is impossible to identify such facts. Had affiant sworn that all the facts alleged in the petition as being true that he swore to their truth, it would present a different case....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zanes v. Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. of Texas
...220 S. W. 598; Lane v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 177; Kopplin v. Ludwig (Tex. Civ. App.) 170 S. W. 105; Robertson v. Economy Plumbing Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 481; Butler v. Remington (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. In construing article 4647, supra, the court in the case of Butler ......
-
Bledsoe v. Mack
...in this character of a proceeding." To a like import are the following cases not cited in the opinion mentioned: Robertson v. Economy Plumbing Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 481; Gray v. S. T. Woodring Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 197 S. W. 231; Wilkinson v. Lyon (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 6......
-
Wilson v. State
...(Tex. Civ. App.) 49 S.W. (2d) 922 (writ refused); State Banking Board v. Smyth (Tex. Civ. App.) 2 S.W.(2d) 536; Robertson v. Economy Plumbing Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 481; West Texas Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Stolte (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 632; Butler v. Remington (Tex. Civ. App.)......
-
City of Groveton v. Pruitt
...the conscience of the individual taking same and shall be subject to the pains and penalties of perjury." In Robertson v. Economy Plumbing Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 481, it is held that an affidavit verifying petition for injunction alleging numerous facts, being merely "that `the fact......