Court Opinion

ID: 9828244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:14:01.905479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.531405
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee appears to be aggrieved by the fact that this court called the United Services Automobile Association a corporation, and it is admitted that such association, company, or insurance company, is not a corporation and the court erred in so denominating it. That error, however, did not in. any way affect the law applicable to the writ of mandamus being the proper writ to be used in compelling action on the part of the officers. We still hold that the writ of injunction should not have been issued when an adequate remedy is provided by law.
This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, and it is the contention of appellee in a motion for rehearing that the suit was not brought for anything except to obtain a temporary injunction. We cannot conceive of what benefit a temporary injunction would be to ap-pellee in this case. The petition shows that appellant was suing for his membership and place in the organization, call it what yon may, from which he had been ousted. This was alleged to be a thing of value to him, an,d he was not suing merely for a temporary injunction, but was seeking to have a valuable right restored to him and interference therewith prevented by the officers of the organization. Appellee did not sue merely for a temporary injunction, but for valuable rights to wMch he alleged he was entitled.
We find no objection to the former opinion, which can be sustained, and the motion for rehearing will be overruled.