Anderson v. CRAIN CHEMICAL COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Texas

Anderson v. CRAIN CHEMICAL COMPANY

381 S.W.2d 364, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2735

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJuly 17, 1964

Docket16401

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 381 S.W.2d 364 (Anderson v. CRAIN CHEMICAL COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. CRAIN CHEMICAL COMPANY, 381 S.W.2d 364, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2735 (Tex. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting appellee Crain Chemical Company, Inc. a temporary injunction against its former salesman, appellant Raye Anderson, restraining him from competing with appellee for a period of one year after termination of such employment.

It appearing from the record before us that the temporary injunction has expired by its own terms pending this appeal, the questions raised by the appeal have become moot. An actual controversy being essential to the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, we deem it improper to decide the abstract questions of law presented by the briefs. Swank v. Sharp, Tex.Civ.App., 358 S.W.2d 950, no wr. hist.; McNeill v. Hubert, 119 Tex. 18,23 S.W.2d 331; Renfro v. Burrell, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 1110, no wr. hist.; 3 Tex.Jur.2d Appeal and Error — Civil, p. 313, § 50, p. 320, § 55. The question of liability for costs does not prevent the case from becoming moot. Isbell v. Rednick, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 736.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, without prejudice, however, to the rights, if any, of either party to assert liability on the temporary injunction bond or the appeal bond.

*365 The costs of the appeal are taxed against the parties incurring the same. Isbell v. Rednick, Tex.Civ.App., supra. The costs in the trial court will be appropriately-taxed by that court in rendering final judg-anent.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting appellee Crain Chemical Company, Inc. a temporary injunction against its former salesman, appellant Raye Anderson, restraining him from competing with appellee for a period of one year after termination of such employment.

It appearing from the record before us that the temporary injunction has expired by its own terms pending this appeal, the questions raised by the appeal have become moot. An actual controversy being essential to the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, we deem it improper to decide the abstract questions of law presented by the briefs. Swank v. Sharp, Tex.Civ.App., 358 S.W.2d 950, no wr. hist.; McNeill v. Hubert, 119 Tex. 18,23 S.W.2d 331; Renfro v. Burrell, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 1110, no wr. hist.; 3 Tex.Jur.2d Appeal and Error — Civil, p. 313, § 50, p. 320, § 55. The question of liability for costs does not prevent the case from becoming moot. Isbell v. Rednick, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 736.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, without prejudice, however, to the rights, if any, of either party to assert liability on the temporary injunction bond or the appeal bond.

*365 The costs of the appeal are taxed against the parties incurring the same. Isbell v. Rednick, Tex.Civ.App., supra. The costs in the trial court will be appropriately-taxed by that court in rendering final judg-anent.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 S.W.2d 364, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-crain-chemical-company-texapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack