Sinclair Ref. v. City of Paris

8 Citing cases

  1. Boyle v. Paul

    86 S.W.2d 745 (Tex. 1935)   Cited 5 times

    The right to homestead user, even though it vests immediately, is subject to the statutory method and orderly procedure therein provided for, especially where the widow is not in possession of the property. R. S., 1925, Art. 3485; Tyson v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 53 S.W.2d 79; Harris v. Seigel, 68 S.W.2d 330; Sinclair Ref. Co. v. City of Paris, 68 S.W.2d 230; Pace v. Eoff, 48 S.W.2d 956. MR. PRESIDING JUDGE HARVEY delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section A.

  2. Terry v. City of Dallas

    175 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. Civ. App. 1943)   Cited 4 times

    Thus, in our opinion, the present record does not clearly negative the existence of an ultimate defensive issue, for disposition on final trial. An interlocutory injunction is a provisional and intermediate remedy, and ordinarily will not issue when its effect is to grant full and final relief; Sinclair Refining Co. v. City of Paris, Tex.Civ.App. 68 S.W.2d 230; 24 T.J., Sec. 132. On above grounds, the writer concludes that the injunction heretofore granted should be dissolved and application therefor dismissed; and this concurrence in the original opinion of Associate Justice Looney is to that extent only.

  3. Kimbrough v. State

    139 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940)   Cited 3 times

    " This we further deduced was "the true reason supporting the legal proposition that `Ordinarily, where the issuance of a preliminary injunction would have the effect of granting all the relief that could be obtained by a final decree and would practically dispose of the whole case, it will not be granted.' 32 C.J. p. 21, ยง 2." As supporting the preceding subquotation, in addition to the authorities there cited, we may further cite the following later Texas cases: Vireca Corp. v. Cole, Tex. Civ. App. 93 S.W.2d 567; Morgan v. Brannon, Tex. Civ. App. 95 S.W.2d 509; Sinclair Ref. Co. v. City of Paris, Tex. Civ. App. 68 S.W.2d 230. There was no appeal from the temporary injunction and we have adverted to the law governing same only by way of a reason supporting our conclusion that a temporary injunction of identical nature and effect as the permanent injunction should be held not to so operate as in practical effect to defeat the right of an appealing party to supersede the judgment from which the appeal is prosecuted.

  4. HUME v. ZUEHL

    119 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)   Cited 3 times

    A temporary injunction will not be issued under such circumstances. James v. Weinstein Sons, Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 959; Welsh v. Carter, Tex. Civ. App. 30 S.W.2d 354; Coffee v. Borger State Bank, Tex. Civ. App. 38 S.W.2d 187; Bledsoe v. Grand Lodge, Tex. Civ. App. 53 S.W.2d 73; Nelson v. Thompson, Tex. Civ. App. 64 S.W.2d 373; Gordon v. Hawkins, Tex. Civ. App. 66 S.W.2d 432; Sinclair Refining Co. v. City of Paris, Tex. Civ. App. 68 S.W.2d 230; Williams v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co, Tex. Civ. App. 87 S.W.2d 892; Morgan v. Smart, Tex. Civ. App. 88 S.W.2d 769; Morgan v. Brannon, Tex. Civ. App. 95 S.W.2d 509. The order refusing the temporary injunction is affirmed.

  5. Humble Oil Ref. v. Neeks Drilling

    119 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)   Cited 1 times

    To determine the contentions of appellant or that of appellee would, in effect, determine the title in the trespass to try title action. In Sinclair Refining Co. v. City of Paris, Tex. Civ. App. 68 S.W.2d 230, which has been cited with approval in subsequent decisions by the courts of this state, it is stated (page 235): "An interlocutory injunction is a remedy provisional and intermediate only, and ordinarily it will not be granted where its issuance would have the effect to practically dispose of the whole case and of granting all the relief that could be obtained by a final decree." This court is not to determine the respective rights of the parties under the cause of action asserted or defenses urged.

  6. Vireca Corporation v. Cole

    93 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936)   Cited 2 times

    " Judge Levy, speaking for the court in Sinclair Refining Co. v. City of Paris (Tex.Civ.App.) 68 S.W.2d 230, 235, states: "The legal rights of appellant to pursue business of operating a filling station on the particular lot is not so certain, in point of fact as well as in point of law, as to warrant setting aside the conclusion of the trial judge in respect thereto. The controversy is one best determined upon final trial and judgment, and not through means of an interlocutory order, as a ruling, as it might be, would finally determine the suit.

  7. Morgan v. Smart

    88 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. Civ. App. 1935)   Cited 17 times

    (Italics ours.) 32 C.J. p. 20, ยง 2. As supporting the text, the following Texas cases, including some of those above, are cited: John Dollinger v. Horkan (Tex. Civ. App.) 202 S.W. 978; Allen v. Knox (Tex. Civ. App.) 195 S.W. 1169; City Com'rs of Port Arthur v. Fant (Tex. Civ. App.) 193 S.W. 334; McFadden v. Wiess (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S.W. 486; Mendelsohn v. Gordon (Tex. Civ. App.) 156 S.W. 1149; International G. N. R. Co. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 150 S.W. 239; Thurman v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 67 S.W.2d 382; Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Paris (Tex. Civ. App.) 68 S.W.2d 230; Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S.W.2d 989; Diamond v. Hodges (Tex. Civ. App.) 58 S.W.2d 187; Bledsoe v. Grand Lodge (Tex. Civ. App.) 53 S.W.2d 73; Amarillo Mut. Benev. Ass'n v. Sims (Tex. Civ. App.) 53 S.W.2d 329; City of Farmersville v. Texas-Louisiana Power Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 33 S.W.2d 272; Walter v. Hammonds (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S.W.2d 1083; James v. E. Weinstein Sons (Tex.Com.App.) 12 S.W.2d 959; Duncan v. Boyd (Tex. Civ. App.) 288 S.W. 281; City Council of Ft. Worth v. Fort Worth Associated Master Plumbers, etc., (Tex. Civ. App.) 8 S.W.2d 730; Gordon v. Hoencke (Tex. Civ. App.) 253 S.W. 629. If the "sole object" of a preliminary (temporary or interlocutory) injunction is to "preserve the subject in controversy" and to preserve it "in its then existing condition" until such controversy is tried on its merits, it is apparent that such "sole object" not only cannot be accomplished by a preliminary injunction embracing the entire subject-matter of the su

  8. Williams v. Sinclair Prairie Oil

    87 S.W.2d 892 (Tex. Civ. App. 1935)   Cited 3 times

    On an appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, the review is not extended to the merits of the main case, but is restricted to the propriety of the interlocutory order sought. Sinclair Refining Co. v. City of Paris (Tex. Civ. App.) 68 S.W.2d 230. Generally, it is the duty of the trial court to refuse an application for a temporary writ of injunction when the effect of the issuance of such writ is to grant all the relief to the appellant that could be granted on a final trial.