Patten v. Quirl

3 Citing cases

  1. Frost v. Mischer

    463 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. 1971)   Cited 8 times
    In Frost v. Mischer, 463 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. 1971), the Court recognized and affirmed the rule that an injunction suit is proper against a "naked trespasser who forcibly or fraudulently intrudes upon the land of an owner in possession."

    The court cited with approval, Bruce v. Moore, 277 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.Civ.App. 1955, no writ); West v. Culpepper, 159 S.W.2d 961 (Tex.Civ.App. 1942, no writ); and Walker v. Haley, 147 S.W. 360 (Tex.Civ.App. 1912, writ dis.). Other cases which support the rule that a suit for injunction may not be substituted for an action in trespass to try title are Patten v. Quirl, 447 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969, writ ref. n.r.e.); City of Dallas v. Patti, 286 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Civ.App. 1956, writ ref. n.r.e.); Morgan v. Brannon, 95 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.Civ.App. 1936, no writ); Lewis v. Hoerster, 92 S.W.2d 537 (Tex.Civ.App. 1936, no writ); Rogers v. Day, 20 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.Civ.App. 1929, writ dis.); and Hill v. Brown, 237 S.W. 252 (Tex.Com.App. 1922, judgment adopted). See also, Fant v. Massie, 451 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Civ.App. 1970, writ ref. n.r.e.); 43 C.J.S. Injunctions §§ 54, 55, 56, 57; Lowe and Archer, Injunctions and Other Extraordinary Proceedings, Secs. 266, 290.

  2. Brittingham v. Ayala

    995 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. App. 1999)   Cited 16 times

    If a claim or cause of action is not alleged, the trial court lacks authority to issue an injunction. See Patten v. Quirl, 447 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. Civ. App. — Dallas 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); cf. Bybee v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 160 Tex. 429, 331 S.W.2d 910, 917 (1960) (explaining that failure to state a cause of action is not jurisdictional); Nowak v. Los Patios Investors, Ltd., 898 S.W.2d 9, 10-11 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1995, no writ) (illustrating that injunctions must be related to causes of action). In this case, Cristina pled only for injunctive relief, indicating that collection efforts were pending in Mexico.

  3. Inman v. Padrezas

    540 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 19 times

    We now come to the question of whether there was an adequate remedy at law other than the granting of the injunction. Appellants assert that where title to land is the basis of the dispute, injunction is not the proper remedy when the legal remedy of trespass to try title is available. Bruce v. Moore, 277 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco, 1955, no writ); Fant v. Massie, 451 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Patten v. Quirl, 447 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); McMahon v. Fender, 350 S.W.2d 239 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.). These authorities are not in point.