Case Name: DENTON et al. v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-03-15
Citations: 160 S.W. 113
Docket Number: 
Parties: DENTON et al. v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 160
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
DENTON et al. v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.
March 15, 1913.
On Rehearing, Oct. 25, 1913.)
Carriers (§ 14 ) — Passengers — Depot Grounds — Rights oe Transfer Companies.
Where a railroad company had given a particular transfer company the exclusive right upon the railroad company’s trains and premises to solicit baggage, etc., defendant will be enjoined at the suit of the company from going upon its premises to solicit patronage.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 29; Dec. Dig. § 14. ]
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; R. H. Buck, Judge.
Suit by the Texas & Pacific Railway Company against George C. Denton and another. From decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
McLean, Scott, McLean & Bradley, of Ft. Worth, for appellants. Thompson & Barwise and Bryan & Spoonts, all of Ft. Worth, for appellee.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SPEER, J.
This is an appeal by George C. Denton and G. W. Suters from a judgment of the district court of Tarrant county, in favor of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, wherein a "temporary writ" of injunction was awarded against appellants restraining them from soliciting business as transfer agents about the passenger station and trains of the complaining company. A decree appears to have been entered upon the regular call of the cause, at a regular term of the district court, and has the indicia of a final judgment. There are no briefs filed by the appellant, and we would therefore perhaps be justified in dismissing the appeal for the want of prosecution. But treating it as an appeal from an interlocutory order entered in term time (Revised Statutes 1911, arts. 4644 and 4645), we would be required to hear the case without such briefs; but at this point we are confronted' with another difficulty, and that is that no motion for a new trial was filed in the court below as required by rule 71a for the district and county courts (145 S. W. vii).
Moreover, no assignments of error were filed in the trial court and none is filed here, and we are completely at a loss to know upon what point or ground a revision of the judgment below is sought. Whether the ruling of the court upon demurrers, the admission or rejection of evidence (there being a statement of facts), or otherwise, is complained of, we cannot determine. The errors are such as may have been waived, and presumably they were. There is no fundamental error apparent, and the judgment is affirmed. Forty-Acre Spring Live Stock Co. v. West Texas Bank & Trust Co., 55 Tex. Civ. App. 116, 118 S. W. 790.