Case ID: sw_283/html/1071-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEBSTER BROS. & CO. v. FREDERICK LEYLAND & CO., Limited.
    (No. 14699.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    May 26, 1926.)
    1. Appeal and error <@=>361 (5) — Dissolution of temporary injunction restraining oarrier from transporting cotton levied on by sheriff under writ of attachment was immaterial question on application for writ of error.
    Where cotton was levied on by sheriff under writ of attachment, it was in custody of court, and dissolution of temporary injunction restraining , carrier from transporting it out of country was immaterial question on application for writ of error.
    2. Appeal and error <§=36i(5).
    Application for writ of error to Supreme Court, not involving construction of any statute, or presenting any matters of importance to jurisprudence of the state, will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
    Suit by Webster-Bros. & Co. against Frederick Leyland & Co., Limited, and others. An order denying the named defendant’s motion to dissolve a writ of temporary injunction was reversed, and a judgment sustaining the.motion and dissolving the writ rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals (283 S. W. 332), and plaintiff applies for a writ of error.
    Application dismissed.
    Bailey & Bailey and W. H. Reid, all of Dallas, for applicant.
   PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case, reported in 283 S. W. 332, shows that—

“After the injunction had been issued and served, appellee, on the 5th day of September, 1925, sued out a writ of attachment, and caused writs to be issued to Galveston and Harris counties and levied by the sheriffs of said counties respectively on the cotton impounded by said writ of injunction. Therefore, at the time of the filing and hearing of appellant’s motion vto dissolve the temporary writ of injunction, the cotton in question was not in the hands of appellant, but had been taken out of its possession,* and was in the hands of the respective sheriffs of Harris and Galveston counties.”

It is apparent that the cotton in question was in the custody- of the court and not of Frederick Leyland & Co. for transportation. Leyland & Co., therefore, could not ship or transport the cotton out of - this country, and there exists no necessity for the continuance of the temporary Injunction restraining them from so doing. Therefore, the dissolution of the temporary injunction by the Court of Civil Appeals becomes an immaterial question. The. consideration of the meaning of the bill of lading act' discussed by the Court of Civil Appeals and its 'validity is not necessary in disposing of this application for writ of error. These questions should be determined upon full record when the. ownership of the bill of lading and other relevant facts have been established by the trial court. In view of the above, the application does not necessarily involve the construction of any statute or present any matters of importance to the jurisprudence of the state, and it is, therefore, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.