Butler v. Remington

Court of Appeals of Texas

Butler v. Remington

230 S.W. 224, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 167

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 2, 1921

DocketNo. 9683.

StatusPublished

This text of 230 S.W. 224 (Butler v. Remington) 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

Butler v. Remington, 230 S.W. 224, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 167 (Tex. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

BUCK, J.

This is an appeal from a temporary injunction granted on ex parte, hearing in favor of E. Remington against Ben I. Butler, Arthur Heman, and H. B. Bowles. There are a number of reasons assigned why the judgment below is erroneous, but we will notice only one; i. e., that the affidavit to the petition upon which the injunction was granted was not in proper form. The petition is sworn to by plaintiff’s attorney as follows:

“I, Dee Estes, one of the attorneys of record for the plaintiff herein, do swear that the matters and facts above alleged are true and correct, according to my information and belief.”

[1, 2] We do not believe that this affidavit is sufficient to sustain a petition for injunction. Article 4649,, V. S. Tex. Civ. Stats., provides that no injunction shall be granted unless the applicant present a petition verified by his affidavit. This affidavit must state that the facts upon which the applicant relies to sustain his injunction are true, and an affidavit upon information and belief is insufficient. Wilson v. Adams, 15 Tex. 323; Pullen v. Baker, 41 Tex. 419; Graham v. McCarty, 69 Tex. 324, 7 S. W. 342; Railway Co. v. Pietzsch, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 572, 30 S. W. 1083; Clarey v. Hurst, 136 S. W. 840; Smith v. Banks, 152 S. W. 449; Foresty Oil Co. v. Wilson, 178 S. W. 628; Kopplin v. Ludwig, 170 S. W. 105; Ginther v. De Zabalgoitio, 170 S. W. 793. The form of the affidavit may be questioned for the first time on appeal. White v. Ferris, 186 S. W. 367.

The judgment below will be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the trial court to set aside the judgment heretofore granted.

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

BUCK, J.

This is an appeal from a temporary injunction granted on ex parte, hearing in favor of E. Remington against Ben I. Butler, Arthur Heman, and H. B. Bowles. There are a number of reasons assigned why the judgment below is erroneous, but we will notice only one; i. e., that the affidavit to the petition upon which the injunction was granted was not in proper form. The petition is sworn to by plaintiff’s attorney as follows:

“I, Dee Estes, one of the attorneys of record for the plaintiff herein, do swear that the matters and facts above alleged are true and correct, according to my information and belief.”

[1, 2] We do not believe that this affidavit is sufficient to sustain a petition for injunction. Article 4649,, V. S. Tex. Civ. Stats., provides that no injunction shall be granted unless the applicant present a petition verified by his affidavit. This affidavit must state that the facts upon which the applicant relies to sustain his injunction are true, and an affidavit upon information and belief is insufficient. Wilson v. Adams, 15 Tex. 323; Pullen v. Baker, 41 Tex. 419; Graham v. McCarty, 69 Tex. 324, 7 S. W. 342; Railway Co. v. Pietzsch, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 572, 30 S. W. 1083; Clarey v. Hurst, 136 S. W. 840; Smith v. Banks, 152 S. W. 449; Foresty Oil Co. v. Wilson, 178 S. W. 628; Kopplin v. Ludwig, 170 S. W. 105; Ginther v. De Zabalgoitio, 170 S. W. 793. The form of the affidavit may be questioned for the first time on appeal. White v. Ferris, 186 S. W. 367.

The judgment below will be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the trial court to set aside the judgment heretofore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 S.W. 224, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-remington-texapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack