University of Tex. v. Morris
| Decision Date | 08 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. A-8031,A-8031 |
| Parties | UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS et al., Petitioners, v. Chester R. MORRIS, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Will Wilson, Atty, Gen., Lawrence Hargrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Q. C. Taylor, Austin, for petitioners.
Chester R. Morris, pro se, for respondent.
On April 20, 1960, the District Court of Travis County, Texas ordered a consolidation of three separate suits in which Chester R. Morris was plaintiff and numerous persons, including the State of Texas, The University of Texas and Dr. Anthony P. Rousos were defendants. Morris moved to stay proceedings in the consolidated cause until he could try a suit filed by him against Dr. Rousos in the United States District Court of New Mexico. Dr. Rousos countered by requesting a temporary injunction restraining Morris from proceeding with the New Mexico case until the consolidated case had been disposed of. Morris' motion was overruled and the defendants' application for temporary injunction was granted. Upon appeal from the order granting the temporary injunction, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the order of the trial court. 337 S.W.2d 169.
The majority of the appellate court treated the matter as one of abatement. One of the justices was of the opinion that the application for the temporary injunction sought to invoke the trial court's equitable power to prevent vexatious litigation. We agree with this view. In his reply to Morris' motion to stay and in his affirmative application for temporary injunction, Dr. Rousos pleaded that the consolidated suit in the Texas court and the suit filed in the federal court in New Mexico were essentially the same and that he and the other defendants in the consolidated cause had 'been harassed through a period of years by similar suits involving similar and the same causes of action filed by the plaintiff in the County Court of Travis County, Texas, and in the 126th, 98th and 53rd District Courts of Travis County, Texas' and that 'he (Morris) still persists in filing numerous other suits involving essentially the same causes of action, all of which have greatly harassed this defendant as well as all of the other defendants. * * *.'
A district court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter may enjoin a party from prosecuting a cause of action in another court when such relief is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of suits, avoid vexatious litigation, or prohibit the use of the judicial processes for purposes of harassment. Repka v. American National Ins. Co., 143 Tex. 542, 186 S.W.2d 977; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U.S. 44, 62 S.Ct. 6, 86 L.Ed. 28; Poole v. Mississippi Publishers Corp., 208 Miss. 364, 44 So.2d 467; 21 C.J.S. Courts § 554, p. 858; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions, § 49, p. 499; 28 Am.Jur. 708, 715, 716, Injunctions, §§ 200, 209, 210; Cf. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Dowe, 70 Tex. 5, 7 S.W. 368; Renfroe v. Johnson, 142 Tex. 251, 177 S.W.2d 600; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Pearlstone Mill & Elevator Co., Tex.Com.App., 53 S.W.2d 1001, holding approved by the Supreme Court; Commonwealth Casualty & Insurance Co. v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 394, no wr. hist.
Despite Dr. Rousos' failure to enter an appearance in the Texas suit prior to the time the New Mexico suit was filed, we are of the opinion that his position is not so lacking in equity as to deny him the injunctive relief which was awarded him by the trial court. Had Morris instituted but two suits, one in Texas and a later one in New Mexico, there undoubtedly would have existed a lack of equity. But this is not the entire picture of events.
The nature of Morris' asserted cause of action is discussed in detail by the Court of Civil Appeals in Morris v. Nowotny, 323 S.W.2d 301, wr. ref. n. r. e. The principal charges made by Morris were that 'he was ordered off the University campus by Deans Nowotny and Bredt; that he was arrested by University policemen upon his refusal to leave University premises; that Doctors White and Rousos testified falsely regarding his mental condition; that he had been barred readmittance to the University, and that Dean Nowotny has given out false information to his employers or prospective employers.' 323 S.W.2d 311. In the particular case, the cause as against Dr. Rousos and a number of defendants was dismissed without prejudice.
In the present case when Morris' motion to stay proceedings in the Texas court and Dr. Rousos' application for temporary injunction were heard, the trial judge made extensive inquiries of Morris in regard to his institution of suits against The University of Texas and other defendants, including Dr. Rousos.
Morris testified that after the dismissal of the case considered by the Court of Civil Appeals, he secured the permission of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone
...of the trial court record. Consequently, there is no proof that these awards have actually been paid. See University of Texas v. Morris, 162 Tex. 60, 344 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1961); see also Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1287-88.8 OCF reported this same information to its shareholders in its 1991 and 19......
-
In re Doe, 14-16-00555-CV
...2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.).69 See, e.g., Bowden v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 247 S.W.3d 690, 707 (Tex.2008) ; Univ. of Tex. v. Morris , 162 Tex. 60, 344 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1961) ; Phillips Petroleum Co . v. Bowden, 108 S.W.3d 385, 401 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003), rev'd in part on o......
-
In re v.
...by the record containing the evidence that was before the trial court at the time it entered its decree. See Univ. of Tex. v. Morris, 162 Tex. 60, 344 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1961). “It is axiomatic that an appellate court reviews the actions of a trial court based on the materials before the tria......
-
In re Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
...the time it made its decision." In re M-I L.L.C. , 505 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Morris , 162 Tex. 60, 344 S.W.2d 426, 429 (Tex. 1961) ); see also In re Thetford , 574 S.W.3d 362, 365 n.7 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding).III. Fundamentals of Texas......