Court Opinion

ID: 9829281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:09:33.059882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.436602
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee's urge that we misconceived the purport of the allegations of their petition, in concluding that the allegations showed that Cunningham and Fogarty were partners in the “Consumers’ Supply Company.” In the petition, allegations were made which we construed as meaning that said Cunningham and Fogarty were members of said “Consumers’ Supply Company”; but if we were mistaken in so construing the allegations of the petition, the petition did not allege that they were not members of said partnership, and if they were not such members, it was necessary for that fact to be alleged, in order to make the petition for injunction good as against a general demurrer; If they were members, no duty devolved on the city council to try and determine the complaint. A petition for injunction must state all the material and essential elements entitling the petitioner to relief and negative every reasonable inference arising upon the facts so ’stated that the petitioner might not, under other supposable facts, be entitled to relief. Gillis v. Rosenheimer, 64 Tex. 243; Moody & Jamison v. Cox, 54 Tex. 492; Birchfield v. Bourland, 187 S. W. 422, by this court; Emde v. Johnson, 214 S. W. 575, by this court. Hence, even if we were mistaken as to the purport of petitioners’ petition in this respect, we are not mistaken as to the failure to deny that Cunningham and Fogarty were members of the partnership of the “Consumers’ Supply Company.”
We have carefully considered this motion, and conclude that we must overrule it.
Motion for rehearing overruled.