Court Opinion

ID: 9830403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:10:41.899864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:21.187001
License: Public Domain

*843On Motion for Rehearing.
On invitation from the court, both sides have obligingly and helpfully presented further arguments and authorities upon the reconsideration; it is again concluded, however, that the original disposition of the cause was correct, and that the holding then made that the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the appellant’s petition should be adhered to. This mainly upon the consideration that —being an application for injunction — while its definite and unequivocal averments are taken -as true on the demurrer, the court will nevertheless consider it in accordance with its general scope and tenor, regardless of isolated averments, subjecting it to a strict construction, and taking its reasonable purport as an entirety strongly against the pleader. 24 Texas Jurisprudence, Injunctions, par. 186, and footnote cited authorities; 32 Corpus Juris, Injunctions, par. 557 — f, and footnote cited cases.
Applying these well-settled rules of law to the petition here involved, it is plain that it does not meet the requirements, especially in view of these specific allegations therein, which were commented upon without quotation thereof in our former opinion, which unmistakably declare that the appellant grounded his real cause of action for the writ upon proceedings that had already been taken before he became the owner of the property affected, before he came into possession of it, and before he complained about the road over it, to wit:
“Plaintiff represents to the court that he is now, and has been since on or about the 28th day of October, 1933, the owner of and seized in fee simple and in actual possession and control of the following described tract or parcel of land (here describing by metes and bounds the land over which the road in question was laid out and of which he complains). * * *
“That the road complained of was laid out and established by a Jury of View in July, 1932, and that the report of said Jury of View was filed with the Commissioners’ Court of Colorado County, Texas, on August 8, 1932, which report was by the Commissioners’ Court on the same day duly adopted and said road as therein recommended established by said court. * * *
“That said strip of land in controversy has, since the taking thereof, been, and is now being, maintained as the- road, and that defendants are now seeking to gravel same and threatening to keep the construction thereof over and across plaintiff’s land as hereinafter shown. * * *
“That the said E. P. Krenek, mortgagor, was at the time of the beginning of the purported opening of such road over and across said land aforesaid and has ever since said time been insolvent and unable to pay plaintiff the full amount loaned to him. That the value of said land and premises, at the time of the conveyance of same to plaintiff, under the existing circumstances and by reason of the establishment and opening of said road over and across same, was less than the amount due and owing by him, the said E. P. Krenek, to plaintiff, or, in other words, that the said land by reason of the establishment and opening of said road over same, was not, at the time of such conveyance, of sufficient value to meet the demand of plaintiff, the mortgagee, and which fact was then and is now well known to defendants, and each of them. * * *
“And that they (appellees) have heretofore entered the said premises now owned by plaintiff and torn down the fences and are now grading up the land of plaintiff for such road purposes and have graveled said purported road over and across same for a distance of about 180 feet and about 18 feet wide to a depth of from 6 to 8 inches, over the protest and objections of plaintiff. •* * *
“Plaintiff further represents to the court that, on or about the 16th day of February, A.D.1934, and immediately after learning of the work and graveling being commenced on said strip of land in controversy, he, plaintiff, requested and directed the defendant, who was then in charge of said road construction work, and his employees, to desist and refrain from carrying on such work, and graveling said proposed road through his, plaintiff’s land, as plaintiff did not want his farm ruined with gravel.”
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.