Court Opinion

ID: 9681959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:02:12.232518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:49.140494
License: Public Domain

WILSON, Justice,
dissenting.
The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant’s application for temporary injunction. At the close of appellant’s offer of evidence, and prior to presenting any evidence, appellee moved for an instructed verdict on the specifically stated ground that appellant had failed to prove irreparable harm. This motion was granted by the trial judge. The majority finds this decision was an abuse of discretion. I respectfully dissent because I believe the majority is mistaken in concluding the trial judge acted outside acceptable boundaries of discretion in deciding the issue of irreparable harm.
I would hold the only issue on appeal is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in deciding appellant failed to prove irreparable harm. Notwithstanding the briefing relative to other elements of proof necessary to obtain a temporary injunction, I believe it is appropriate for us to review only the narrow issue the trial judge decided.
With respect, the majority’s decision is in conflict with our Court’s holding in Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Kingston Inv. Corp., 819 S.W.2d 607, 611 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ). In Manufacturers Hanover, our Court reversed a trial court that based an entry of an order of temporary injunction on what “may” or “might” happen to the applicant. “Moreover, an injunction will not lie to prevent injury that is purely conjectural.” Id. (citing Otten v. Town of China Grove, 660 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1983, writ dism’d)).
The majority states in its opinion that: (1) the tank could be repossessed; (2) if the tank is repossessed, it will ruin appellant’s credit; (3) if appellee is insolvent when the case goes to trial, it will not be able to pay for the tank and for the gas already delivered, and (4) all the evidence tends to support the probability of harm. All of the emphasized words, taken as true, are to some degree, conjecture. Further, some of the concepts of damages discussed by the majority (e.g., ruin of appellant’s credit) sound in tort rather than in the simple breach of contract ease pled by appellant.
The majority also comments on its section devoted to irreparable harm that if appellee is insolvent at the time of trial, *536appellee could not pay for the tank. I find no provision in the contract that requires appellee to pay for the tank in the event of a breach. In fact, the contract does not require appellant to buy a tank, only to install one if necessary. In the event ap-pellee’s need for product ended during the term of the contract, appellee was obligated to pay for the cost of removal of the equipment, plus any unamoritized equipment installation cost. Under the contract, any ultimate recovery of the cost of the tank is also speculative.
I would affirm the trial court’s decision for the reason the trial judge did not clearly abuse his discretion in granting appel-lee’s motion for instructed verdict. Manufacturers Hanover, 819 S.W.2d at 610.