Summary
construing two documents so as to give effect to each
Summary of this case from Galveston v. Galveston M. POpinion
Application No. 27,098, Motion No. 16180.
Application refused for want of merit July 14, 1943. Rehearing overruled October 27, 1943.
Jurisdiction — Courts.
Where the court is of the opinion that plaintiffs are without lawful authority to bring or maintain a suit in the courts of this State, no opinion will be expressed on the merits of the case.
Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth District, in an appeal from Bexar County.
This is a suit brought by W.B. Tuttle, Walter P. Napier, D.F. Youngblood, Franz C. Gross and Gus B. Mauermann, as the constituent members of the Board of Trustees of the San Antonio Electric and Gas System, against the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority and the Lower Colorado River Authority seeking a construction of their rights to purchase and control the management of the Comal electric plant, and for the construction of conflicting provisions in this contract and a lease agreement with the Lower Colorado River Authority, which was demanding possession of the property, and for an injunction to restraint defendants from in any way interfering with their possession of said plant pending this litigation. The trial court granted a temporary injunction. This order was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals which ordered the temporary injunction vacated, 171 S.W.2d 520, and plaintiffs filed application for error to the Supreme Court.
Application was refused for want of merit.
Leo Brewer, W.F. Nowlin, W.L. Matthews, all of San Antonio, for petitioners.
E.M. Cape, Tom G. Oliver, Jr., of San Marcos, Fred H. Blundell, of Lockhart, D.W. Glasscock, W.S. Gideon, A.J. Wirtz, of Austin, for respondents.
At a former day in this term of court we "Refused For Want of Merit" application for writ of error No. 27098, filed by the above-named petitioners against the above-named respondents. Such application for writ of error is now before us on motion for rehearing filed by the petitioners in the application. Such motion is No. 16180.
We "Refused For Want of Merit" the application for writ of error in this case because we were of the opinion that the Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that the the plaintiffs who brought this suit in the district court were, and are, without lawful authority to bring or maintain the same. We are still of that opinion. Since we hold that the parties who brought this suit were, and are, without authority to bring or maintain it, we do not consider it proper for us to express an opinion on its merits. We therefore do not do so.
It is ordered that the motion for rehearing above mentioned be, and the same is hereby, overruled.
Opinion delivered October 27, 1943.