Case Name: ELLERD v. GALOVITCH et ux.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-12-14
Citations: 245 S.W. 1038
Docket Number: No. 1389
Parties: ELLERD v. GALOVITCH et ux.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 245
Pages: 1038–1038

Head Matter:
ELLERD v. GALOVITCH et ux.
(No. 1389.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
Dec. 14, 1922.)
Appeal and error <&wkey;781(4) — Appeal from order refusing injunction against interference with possessory right dismissed, where petition shows possessory right has terminated.
In sublessee’s action to enjoin lessors from interfering with his possessory right, an appeal from an order refusing a temporary injunction will be dismissed as presenting merely a moot question, where the petition on its face shows that the possessory right has terminated.
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Ballard Coldwell, Judge.
Action by Reuben M. Ellerd. against Dan Galovitch and wife. From an order refusing a temporary injunction, plaintiff appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Ellerd & McClenny, of El Paso, for appellant.
Jno. T. Hill, of El Paso, for appellees.

Opinion:
HIGGINS, J.
This is an appeal from an order refusing a .temporary injunction.
The appellees are the owners of certain premises in the city of El Paso. Appellant subleased a part of the premises from a lessee of appellees. Appellees resumed possession of the premises from their tenant, and ejected the appellant. The appellant sought to enjoin appellees from interfering with the possessory right which he claimed, and to recover damages for the alleged unlawful ejectment. The petition upon its face shows that the possessory right terminated "June 15, 1922. The only question ever properly before this court upon this appeal related ,to the refusal to grant the temporary injunction. Questions relating to the action for damages are not before us, as there has been no trial of that issue. Since appellant's possessory right has terminated by the lapse of time all questions relating to the refusal of the injuction have become moot, and there is nothing left but the question of costs. The authorities are numerous- that under such circumstances the appeal will be dismissed. It is so ordered.