Court Opinion

ID: 9828702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:38:04.36495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:52.014106
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant was afforded ample opportunity to file exhaustive pleadings in opposition to appellee’s suit, and was extended a full hearing copiously introducing evidence. The pleadings- upon which appellant rested its resistance are most elaborate and complete. The evidence adduced by appellant was exhaustive, and was of a nature which definitely established the truth of the situation and with certainty precluded the entry of a different judgment upon a final heaving. The parties presented the case on both sides to a finality, from the standpoint of evidence. Appellant was accorded and availed itself of every opportunity to present all the ¿facts in its behalf. As above stated, the proof clearly disclosed the inevitable final result. To all intents and purposes there was a final hearing. The record conclusively establishes that a different -judgment could not be entered upon a final hearing. This court constantly has been mindful of the severity and extraordinary nature of the remedy granted. It is one to be accorded only in cases of extreme distress, and only with the greatest; caution; but that it was properly granted in this case is a proposition not without sound authority to sustain it. 14 R. C. D. pp. 317-319, and authorities there cited.
 Our declaration that distinctions between law and equity are not recognized in Texas apparently is regarded by appellant’s counsel as an astounding assertion. This attitude they express in their motion for rehearing. Such view results from a misapprehension of what is said on this' feature in the court’s opinion. We, of course, do not announce the apocryphal doctrine that the rules of equity arfe not applied by Texas courts. We do not fail to recognize that rules of equity are distinguished from rules of law in our jurisprudence, and the contrary we do not state. Equity and law are blended in our courts so as to remove the distinctions between courts of law and courts of chancery, and the procedural distinctions which differentiate them. This is the well-understood meaning of the statement that distinctions between law and equity are not recognized in this state. Suits are filed and pursued to final judgment without regard to whether they in their nature fan in the category of proceedings in equity or at law, the court applying whatever principles of law or of equity which control the questions involved. Such being the case, we restate the proposition that courts in Texas are not so strictly confined to the distinctions between mandatory injunction and mandamus, in extending relief, as are courts in jurisdictions which adhere to the common law.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.