Wilkening v. Wolff, (No. 7939.)

Decision Date04 March 1920
Docket Number(No. 7939.)
Citation220 S.W. 598
PartiesWILKENING v. WOLFF.
CourtTexas 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.

LANE, J.

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:

"That heretofore, to wit, on or about the 26th day of December, A. D. 1919, plaintiff purchased from Willie Wolff an individed one-half interest in and to a certain tract of land in Lee county, Tex., being 200 acres, more or less, out of the Thos. Ward league, and which said property has been duly transferred to said plaintiff by said Willie Wolff; that said plaintiff went upon said land and premises for the peaceable occupation and enjoyment of the same, and is now in possession thereof, but the defendant is seeking to molest the plaintiff in the use and possession thereof; that defendant is seeking to force the plaintiff, by threats for fear of his life, to leave said premises and has so advised him; that he has threatened to lock all of the gates leading in and out of said premises, and has threatened to kill the plaintiff if he does not leave the same; that heretofore, to wit, on or about the 2d day of January, A. D. 1920, and while the plaintiff was on his way home from the town of Burton, and without any cause or provocation on the part of the plaintiff, the said defendant did come up to him and assault him and try to beat him up, and did threaten to kill him on the spot and kept reaching in his pocket as if to get a gun and curse and abuse said plaintiff and threaten to kill him the next time he saw him; that the said defendant is a man of notorious character and of dangerous practices and the plaintiff lives in fear of his life that the defendant will carry out his many threats to kill him or inflict serious bodily injury; that, unless the said defendant is prevented from molesting him, the said plaintiff, he will be unable to safely and peaceably enjoy his rights of possession and the occupancy of the said premises above named; that the said defendant is known all around the Burton community as a terror, a mean and dangerous man, and likely to carry into effect any such threats so made by him; that, unless restrained by your most gracious writ of injunction from coming about the plaintiff or the place on which he resides or interfering with or molesting the plaintiff in the peaceable occupation and enjoyment of the said premises, the said plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury; that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

"Wherefore the plaintiff prays the court that the defendant be cited in the manner and form required by law, and that a writ of injunction issue restraining the defendant from coming about the plaintiff, or the place upon which he resides, or interfering with or molesting the plaintiff in any way or manner whatsoever, or interfering or molesting the plaintiff in the occupation, use, and enjoyment of said premises, and upon a final hearing hereof, that this injunction be made permanent, and for costs of suit, and for such other and further relief, special and general, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Johnson v. Ferguson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 6 Diciembre 1932
    ...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
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 27 Febrero 1932
    ...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
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 5 Diciembre 1923
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 19 Diciembre 1927
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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