Court Opinion

ID: 9830820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:31:49.368321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.280664
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing appellants earnestly challenge No. (1) of this Court’s five specifications, in which their pleading was held to lack the required particularity and direct statement of fact that could properly give a court of equity a hand-hold, by citing Paragraph XIX of their petition as specifically naming the Galveston-Houston Breweries as one of such employers, who was so named; adding, “that such allegation as to a definite and particular contract with such employing-unit, Galveston-Houston Breweries, which concern is a legal entity and is one of the contracting employers referred to by appellants, is sufficient upon which to base a cause-of-action for injunction”.
The vice in this contention is that, while such concern was named in that paragraph, it was only incidentally mentioned as matter of inducement in alleging the appellant’s damages as a result of such acts, and was stated to have already occurred' — that is, “that it has caused the cancellation of a working-agreement between plaintiff union- and the Galveston-Houston Breweries,” no injunctive-relief whatever being predicated upon such then-past act; indeed, the prayer" for the temporary injunctive-relief sought was specifically limited to “restraining the defendant from interfering with contracts of plaintiff-union now in existence”. Obviously this specification adds nothing of substance whatever to the otherwise defective averments, so originally pointed out by this 'Court; nor, in the circumstances and setting in which it so appeared, did it in anywise strengthen the declaration for in-junctive-relief, since “the purpose of such a writ is to prevent wrongful acts threatened, or in the course of accomplishment, and not to grant relief against past actionable wrongs, or future ones that are not imminent”. 24 Tex.Jur., par. 4, page 12; Wright v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W. 925; also 24 Tex.Jur., par. 106, page 147, and authorities cited under foot-notes 5 and 6.
The motion has been carefully considered, but under the conclusion that the cause was properly decided on former hearing, it will be overruled.
Motion refused.
On Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Rehearing.
This court’s Rule No. VI is as follows: “Rule VI — Second Motions for Rehearing: The filing of second motions for rehearing in causes will not be permitted, except in instances of emergency, the emergency to be stated under oath in the application.”
Appellant has in no manner met that requirement in this its third successive application to this court for a hearing of its appeal in this cause; it was accorded two painstaking reviews of the trial court’s action in refusing it' a temporary-injunction, with written opinions delivered upon each, the first one upon original hearing on November 9, 1939, the second on February 29, 1940. In addition, its appeal herein wus only from the order of the trial court denying its interlocutory application *806for a temporary-in junction, in a suit for damages that had never been tried on its merits below, and which, presumably, is still pending there; in so appealing from that order, it invoked the acceleration-privileges available to it under R.S. Art. 4662, both in getting into this Court within 20 days after the entry of such order below, and in securing its advancement here over all other causes for an immediate consideration, which was, as recited, accorded it under full hearings both on oral argument and on briefs; thereafter, in similar manner, and in compliance with prescribed procedure, its first motion for rehearing was also considered and determined.
It therefore has more than had its day in court upon the appeal it so took; further-morej it now mistakes the reaches of the jurisdiction and procedure it so invoked, in that, contrary to the assertions of its present motion, there was nothing before considered or determined by this court, except the appeal from the refusal of the temporary-injunction, which in no manner had to do with any other feature of the cause below out of which that order proceeded.
Motion to file second motion for rehearing will, therefore, be refused.
Motion refused.