Opinion
Motion No. 10689.
Decided April 1, 1933.
Mandamus — Prohibition — Practice in Supreme Court.
A motion for leave to file petition for mandamus and prohibition will be overruled without prejudice to relators to again present the subject matter to the Supreme Court, should it be subsequently shown that available remedies in District Court and Court of Civil Appeals are inadequate to protect their rights.
Original motion by F. H. Pierson and others against Royall R. Watkins and others for leave to file petition for mandamus and prohibition to compel the District Court of the 95th Judicial District in Dallas County to dismiss a cause pending in that court against relators, and prohibit it from enforcing a writ of injunction issued therein restraining relators from carrying out certain orders of the Railroad Commission.
James V. Allred, Attorney General, Maurice Cheek, Willis S. Gresham and A. R. Stout, Assistants Attorney General, for relators.
Hamilton Hamilton, of Dallas, for respondents.
The motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition is overruled, without prejudice to the rights of relators to again present the subject-matter of the application to this Court, should it be subsequently shown that the available remedies in the District Court and Court of Civil Appeals are inadequate to protect the rights of the relators.