Court Opinion

ID: 9671582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:39:53.914811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.947503
License: Public Domain

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING
Respondents in Cause No. 11,228, other than Judge Jones, in their motion say:
“This Court is not correct in holding that the temporary injunction granted by the trial court ‘ceased to exist by operation of law.’ The Court does not refer to what law it has in mind. It must not be the law of Texas for the Supreme Court of this State has stated the law on that question in Riggins v. Thompson, 96 Tex. 154, 71 S.W. 14 (1902) and in Fort Worth St. Ry. Co. v. Rosedale St. Ry. Co., 68 Tex. 163, 7 S.W. 381 (1887). This Court is ordinarily bound to follow the law as expressed by our Supreme Court and to overlook doing so is error.”
The cases cited limit the decision in Williams v. Pouns, 48 Tex. 141, where the Court held that an injunction in force when a final judgment dissolving it was entered, remained in force while the judgment was *904suspended by an appeal under a supersedeas bond.
Regarding the rule of this case the Court in Rosedale St. Ry. Co., supra held it inapplicable to temporary restraining orders and stated:
“The rule that an appeal from a final judgment dissolving an injunction will continue it in force in cases in which the only relief sought is an injunction, may often operate harshly, if not oppressively; and we are of the opinion that it ought not to be so extended as to reach cases other than those to which it has been applied in this state.”
In the case here the injunction in force when final judgment was rendered was not dissolved by such final judgment, it was perpetuated by it.
The opinion in Pouns gives utmost and drastic effect to supersedeas; the Trial Court here went to the opposite extreme and denied it any effect. When the final judgment which granted a permanent injunction was superseded, the previous prohibiting decree of the same import by whatever name it may be called, was effaced.
We additionally cite in support of our decision herein the case of Kimbrough v. State, 139 S.W.2d 165, Eastland Civil Appeals. This was an original contempt proceeding in which it appeared that a temporary injunction had been issued by the Trial Court, then on final trial a permanent injunction was issued which was to the same effect as the temporary injunction. An appeal was taken and supersedeas given. The Appellate Court held that there was no contempt since the supersedeas prevented enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. As to the effect of the temporary injunction the Court said:
“But, even if it were contended that this court should entertain the contempt proceeding upon the ground that, under the authorities above mentioned, the superseding of the final judgment leaves in effect the temporary injunction, we are, nevertheless, of the opinion that we are not authorized to do so. If it be considered that there may be circumstances under which the subject matter of a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction awarded by the final judgment in the same case may properly be the same, saving only in the time of operation, still we think in such case the temporary injunction must be considered to have been merged in the permanent injunction. Otherwise, the right given by R.S.1925, Arts. 2270 and 2275, to supersede a judgment from which an appeal is prosecuted may be completely defeated. When a court, by its judgment in a trial upon the merits, decrees the same injunction previously and provisionally existing as a temporary injunction, there remains no function of the temporary injunction not equally as well performed by the permanent injunction. ‘The law is well settled in this state that the purpose of the issuance of a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo in regard to the matter in controversy, and not to determine the respective rights of the parties under the cause of action asserted or defenses urged.’ * * *
“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.”
The contrary opinion of this Court in Ford v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W. 490, original proceeding, was discussed and, ir\ our opinion, properly disregarded. The San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals in Ross v. State, ex rel. Shook, 97 S.W.2d *905505, original proceedings, refused to follow Ford, saying of it:
“But, even if the decision in that case supports the state’s contention in this case, it is, nevertheless, contrary to the great weight of authority in this state, and has never been followed in any authoritative case that has come to our attention.”
With reference to the immunity of the State and its agencies from the necessity of giving a supersedeas bond in order to supersede a judgment appealed by the State or its agencies we hold, independent of any previous authority, that such right is plainly given by Arts. 2276 and 279a, V.A.T.S. The first Article provides, in part, that “Neither the State * * * nor the head of any department of the State of Texas, prosecuting or defending in any action in their official capacity, shall be required to give bond on any appeal * * * taken by it * * * in any civil case.” Art. 279a provides, in part, that “Neither the State * * * nor any state department, nor the head of any state department * * * shall be required to give any bond incident to any suit filed by any such agency, official * * * for costs of court or for any appeal * * * taken out by it or either of them * * Italics added.
These statutes, in our opinion, plainly provide that the State and its agencies and department heads shall not be required to give any bond on any appeal which they may take. A supersedeas bond is a bond given or which may be given on appeal. It, therefore, need not be given by those to whom the statutes refer.
See in support of our denial of leave to file an application for injunctive relief, City of Groves v. Port Arthur Independent School District, 364 S.W.2d 448, Beaumont Civil Appeals, original proceeding.
The Motions for Rehearing are overruled.