Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones, Nos. A-7199

• Court: Supreme Court of Texas
• Writing for the Court: NORVELL
• Citation: 327 S.W.2d 417,160 Tex. 104
• Parties: SOUTHWEST WEATHER RESEARCH, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. George Asa JONES et al., Respondents. SOUTHWEST WEATHER RESEARCH, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Jim DUNCAN et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 08 July 1959
• Docket Number: A-7201,Nos. A-7199

Page 417

327 S.W.2d 417 160 Tex. 104 SOUTHWEST WEATHER RESEARCH, INC., et al., Petitioners,
v.
George Asa JONES et al., Respondents.
SOUTHWEST WEATHER RESEARCH, INC., et al., Petitioners,
v.
Jim DUNCAN et al., Respondents. Nos. A-7199, A-7201. Supreme Court of Texas. July 8, 1959.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1959.

[160 TEX 105]

Page 418

Raymond A. Lynch, Turpin, Kerr, Smith & Dyer, Midland, for petitioners.

Hunter Metcalfe, William H. Earney, Marfa, Dan Moody, Susette Meyer, Austin, for respondents Jim Duncan and others.

Henry Russell, Pecos, Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy & Laughlin, W. B. Browder, Jr., and Milton L. Bankston, Midland, for respondents George Asa Jones and others.

NORVELL, Justice.

These are artificial weather control cases. In both causes the trial judge issued temporary injunctions which were modified substantially by the Court of Civil Appeals. See, Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Rounsaville, Tex.Civ.App., 320 S.W.2d 211 (the Jones case in this Court) and Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Duncan, Tex.Civ.App., 319 S.W.2d 940. For all practical purposes the two cases present identical questions of law and may be disposed of in one opinion.

The respondents assert that this Court is without potential jurisdiction of these cases and that the writs of error should be dismissed because they were improvidently granted. By an amendment to the application for writs of error, petitioners assert jurisdiction under the provisions of Article 4662, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Stats.

(1) In Weaver v. Board of Trustees of Wilson Independent School District, 143 Tex. 152, 183 S.W.2d 443, it was held that this Court, by virtue of the provisions of said Article 4662, 'has jurisdiction to review, by writ of error, the ruling of the trial court in granting or refusing a temporary injunction where the main case out of which the application for injunction grew [160 TEX 106] is one over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co., 109 Tex. 169, 202 S.W. 725 (266 S.W. 1075); Spence v. Fenchler, 107 Tex. 443, 449, 180 S.W. 597; 24 Tex.Jur. 286, § 230.' This Court clearly has jurisdiction of the main cases out of which the temporary injunctions were issued.

The Weaver case was decided after the adoption of the 1941 Rules of Civil Procedure which resulted in the purely procedural aspects of Article 4662 being carried forward in rule form as a part of Rule 385, while the jurisdictional provisions of the Article in statutory form remained unaffected. Acts 1939, 46th Leg., p. 201, Article 1731-a, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Stats.

Respondents contend that State v. Wynn, Tex., 301 S.W.2d 76 and International Harvester Co. v. Stedman, Tex., 324 S.W.2d 543 are authorities sustaining their position. Both cited cases relate to pleas of privilege under the writ of error practice outlined by the 1953 amendments to Articles 1728 and 1821 of Vernon's Ann.Tex.Stats. Acts 1953, 53rd Leg., p. 1026. The cases before us involve temporary injunctions and in order to construe the 1953 amendment to Articles 1728 and 1821 as precluding Supreme Court review of such injunctions it would be necessary to hold that the 1953 Act impliedly repealed certain provisions of Article 4662. This position is foreclosed by the holding of this Court in Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co., 1918, 109 Tex. 169, 202 S.W. 725, 726, 226 S.W. 1075 construing the predecessor statutory articles comparable to the present Articles 4662 and 1728, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Stats. This Court, speaking through Chief Justice Phillips, said:

'We have not failed to consider the defendant in error's motion to dismiss the cause. The ground of the motion is that the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to grant a writ of error in appeals from interlocutory orders

Page 419

granting, refusing, or dissolving injunctions-which we have heretofore held is possessed by the court under Articles 4644, 4645 and 4646 where the cause in not of that class of which the jurisdiction of the Courts of Civil Appeals is made final by Article 1591-because, it is urged, these articles were in effect repealed by the Amendment of 1913 to Article 1521, defining the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As was announced during the argument, we have heretofore determined this question in assuming the jurisdiction here disputed by our action upon numerous applications for writs of error in causes of the class of the present [160 TEX 107] one since amended Article 1521 became effective. The purpose of Articles 4644, 4645 and 4646 was to confer a special jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court in a particular proceeding. They are particular statutes and relate solely to a certain kind of appeals. Amended Article 1521-since amended by the Act of 1917 (Acts 35th Leg. c. 75, § 1 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.Supp.1918, Art. 1521))-was a general statute and was expressed in only affirmative terms. It contained no negative provisions. Its purpose was only to define the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over causes determined in the Courts of Civil Appeals. It evinced no intention of impairing the special jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court under Articles 4644, 4645 and 4646. There was...