Wilkening v. Wolff, (No. 7939.)
Decision Date | 04 March 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 7939.) |
Citation | 220 S.W. 598 |
Parties | WILKENING v. WOLFF. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Washington County; R. J. Alexander, Judge.
Suit by Oscar Wolff against Frank Wilkening. From order granting temporary injunction, defendant appeals. Judgment reversed, and judgment rendered dissolving injunction and remanding the cause.
The Bowers, of Giddings, for appellant.
W. J. Embrey, of Brenham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction against appellant, Frank Wilkening, as prayed for in the petition of appellee, Oscar Wolff. The petition, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Ferguson
...v. Ballinger (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 1173; Emde v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 575, 578 (error refused); Wilkening v. Wolff (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 598. Manifestly this rule should apply where the sole basis of the trial court's order is the allegations of the petition, which i......
-
Zanes v. Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. of Texas
...following authorities, viz.: Article 4647, R. S. 1925; State Banking Board v. Smyth (Tex. Civ. App.) 2 S.W.(2d) 536; Wilkening v. Wolff (Tex. Civ. App.) 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 Plumbi......
-
West Texas Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Stolte
...189 S. W. 778; Lingwiler v. Lingwiler (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 785; Wilkinson v. Lyon (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 638; Wilkening v. Wolff (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 598; Butler v. Remington (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 224. The defect in the affidavit was called to the attention of the trial......
-
Casper Wyoming Theaters Co. v. Rex Inv. Co.
...show that plaintiff was without legal remedy. Williams v. Mathewson, (N. H.) 60 A. 688; Streator v. Linscott, (Calif.) 95 P. 42; Wilkening v. Wolff, 220 S.W. 598. The affidavit support of the petition is insufficient to support the issuance of an injunction, Howard v. Eddy, (Kans.) 43 P. 11......