The power of this court does not extend to the granting of an injunction solely to prevent damage to one of the parties pending determination of the appeal. Lee v. Lee, 355 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1962, mandamus overruled). It is clear that Courts of Civil Appeals have no original jurisdiction to grant writs of injunction, except to prevent the invasion of their jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a pending appeal, or to prevent an unlawful interference with the enforcement of their judgments and decrees.

By issuing a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction requiring Enid Justin to deposit Nocona stock into the registry of the Montague county district court, the Montague court has effectively enjoined the enforcement of the temporary injunction of the Tarrant county district court, which previously had ordered the stock to be deposited into the registry of the court in Tarrant county. This court, the court of civil appeals, has jurisdiction by reason of the effect of Tex.Const. art. V, sec. 6 (Supp. 1980); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 1823 (1964). Courts of civil appeals have jurisdiction to grant such writs as may be necessary to enforce and protect their jurisdiction over a pending appeal and preserve the subject matter of the appeal. City of Dallas v. Wright, 120 Tex. 190, 36 S.W.2d 973 (1931); Houtchens v. Mercer, 119 Tex. 244, 27 S.W.2d 795 (1930); Lee v. Lee, 355 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1962, mand. overr.); Riverdrive Mall, Inc. v. Larwin Mortgage Investors, 515 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1974, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Dawson v. First National Bank of Troup, 417 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1967, no writ).

We have the power to grant such writs, including the writ of injunction, as may be necessary to enforce or protect our jurisdiction over a pending appeal, and to preserve the subject matter of the appeal. City of Dallas v. Wright, 120 Tex. 190, 36 S.W.2d 973 (1931); Houtchens v. Mercer,119 Tex. 244, 27 S.W.2d 795 (1930); Lee v. Lee, 355 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1962, mand. overr.). The subject matter of the pending appeal is whether the trial court properly refused to grant the requested temporary injunction.

Where the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals has been invoked, that Court has power to issue all writs necessary to enforce and protect its jurisdiction and to preserve the subject-matter of the litigation in order to make its decrees effective. Wieser v. Manning, 471 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.--Waco 1971, no writ); Dawson v. First National Bank of Troup, 417 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1967, no writ); Lee v. Lee, 355 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1962, mandamus overruled); Madison v. Martinez, 42 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1931, writ ref'd); Rule 1823, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. (1964). Relator has timely filed a notice of appeal and has timely filed an appeal bond in the divorce proceeding to which this original proceeding is ancillary and such appeal is now pending in this Court.

31 Tex.Jur.2d, Injunctions, Sec. 98, p. 198. This court has jurisdiction to stay enforcement of a temporary injunction, as well as to grant injunction, mandamus or prohibition, to protect its jurisdiction after the appeal is perfected. Ammex Warehouse Company v. Archer (Tex.Sup. 1964), 381 S.W.2d 478. This power in such cases as the present, however, is again limited generally to preserving the status quo if that status affects jurisdiction, preservation of the subject matter, and preventing the case from becoming moot. Lee v. Lee (Tex.Civ.App., 1962), 355 S.W.2d 255; Boynton v. Brown (Tex.Civ.App., 1914), 163 S.W. 599; Taylor v. American Trust and Savings Bank of El Paso (Tex.Civ.App., 1920), 265 S.W. 727 and cases cited; Gibbons v. Ross (Tex.Civ.App., 1914), 167 S.W. 17; Ford v. State (Tex.Civ.App., 1919), 209 S.W. 490, See Corpus Christi Book S. Co. v. Corpus Christi Nat. Bank (Tex.Civ.App., 1928), 8 S.W.2d 955; Nelson v. Blanco Independent School District (Tex.Civ.App., 1965), 386 S.W.2d 636. This is not such a case.

This Court does have authority to issue writs necessary to protect its jurisdiction. Article 1823, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St.; Lee v. Lee, Tex.Civ.App., 355 S.W.2d 255 (CCA — Houston 1st). However, in this case our jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal will in nowise be affected by our refusal to stay the effectiveness of the injunction.

We are asked to enjoin said respondent, Ben E. Jarvis, from selling this property pending the disposition of the appeal by the appellate courts on its merits in order to preserve the status quo of the parties and to protect the jurisdiction of this court to pass upon the merits. No principle is better settled than that a court will protect its jurisdiction by preserving the subject matter of the litigation in order to make its decrees effective. City of Dallas v. Wright, 120 Tex. 190, 36 S.E.2d 973, 77 A.L.R. 709; Lee v. Lee, 355 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1962, n.w.h.). In the case of Madison v. Martinez, 42 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 1931, writ ref.), the court said:

'* * * if the effect of the refusal of the trial court to continue in force the restraining order is to destroy the subject-matter of the appeal, and thereby prevent the effective operation of any judgment this court might render the jurisdiction of this court would be unlawfully invaded, through the means of the destruction of the subject-matter of the appeal, and the power to issue a proper writ to prevent such condition rests in this court.' See also an excellent opinion on the same subject by Chief Justice Bell in Lee v. Lee, 355 S.W.2d 255, Houston C.C.A. 'No principle is better settled than that a court will protect its jurisdiction by preserving the subject-matter of the litigation in order to make its decrees effective.'

Appellant appealed to this Court from the order dissolving the injunction. After our jurisdiction over such appeal vested, we, on a petition for an original writ of injunction, granted an injunction enjoining the taking of the depositions until we and the Supreme Court could determine the merits of the appeal. This was done to preserve our jurisdiction over the appeal. Lee v. Lee et al., 355 S.W.2d 255. We then, on hearing the appeal, affirmed the action of the trial court in dissolving the injunction ahd the Supreme Court, finding no reversible error, refused a writ of error.