Jones v. Curtis

2 Citing cases

  1. Mann v. Brown

    516 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. Civ. App. 1974)

    It is fundamentally true that before a complaining party can procure injunctive relief, he must resort to all available legal remedies afforded by law. Burdette v. Bell, 218 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1949, n.w.h.); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Luckel, 154 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1941, writ ref'd., w.o.m.); Eclipse Oil Co. v. McAlister, 103 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1937, writ dism.); Herring v. Houston Nat. Exch. Bank, 113 Tex. 337, 255 S.W. 1097, 1103 (1923); Jones v. Curtis, 56 Tex.Civ.App. 181, 120 S.W. 530 (1909, n.w.h.); 31 Tex.Jur.2d p. 105, sec. 43. Since there was a collateral attack on a voidable judgment and since there was no showing of irreparable harm for which there was no adequate legal remedy, the District Court erred by granting a temporary injunction.

  2. Irwin v. Cunningham

    177 S.W. 986 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915)   Cited 12 times

    After the expiration of that time he loses all authority to set the judgment aside. Grant Kenner v. Fowzes Bros., 3 Willson, Civ.Cas.Ct.App. ยง 105; Jones v. Collins, 70 Tex. 753, 8 S.W. 681; Carter v. Van Zandt Co., 75 Tex. 286, 12 S.W. 985; Odle v. Davis, 35 S.W. 721; Bank v. Rowland, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 3, 99 S.W. 1043; Bond v. Rintleman. 24 Tex. Civ. App. 298, 59 S.W. 48; Adams v. Casey-Swasey Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 379, 39 S.W. 654; Dickensheets v. Hudson, 167 S.W. 1097; Jones v. Curtis, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 181, 120 S.W. 531. The article was re-enacted in 1895, after being construed in some of the cited cases, and no change was made in its wording.