Gilson v. Central Power & Light Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gilson v. Central Power & Light Co.

231 S.W.2d 683, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 2206

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 28, 1950

DocketNo. 12122

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 231 S.W.2d 683 (Gilson v. Central Power & Light Co.) 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

Gilson v. Central Power & Light Co., 231 S.W.2d 683, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 2206 (Tex. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

NORVELL, Justice.

Appellant, John C. Gilson, claims a leasehold interest in a triangular tract of land situated in the City of Raymondville, Texas. He is using the same for a parking lo;t Near the point where two of the streets bounding the lot intersect, the.. Central Power and Light' Company has erected two poles. One is a live pole and supports a street light and the other is 'a dead pole -Which supports two signs. One sign was placed''on the pole by the Central Power an'd Light Company and serves to direct persons to the Company’s plant. The other advertises a hotel , operated by Paul R. Wimberly. Both poles are located in the ■space lying between a sidewalk .and the border of the -hard surface of the street.

The court below refused to grant a temporary injunction, prayed for by Gil-son, which would result in the removal of the dead pole and the signs attached thereto. -This order must be affirmed because the - record fails to disclose the existence of an emergency necessitating the granting of a temporary injunction, and for this reason, if for no other, it can not be held that the trial court abused its discretion in 'refusing the application. '

The office of the temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the controversy pending litigation, 24 Tex.Jur. 123, § 86, and not to finally determine property rights. In the absence of a showing of emergency or extreme necessity this Court will not reverse a trial, judge’s order, refusing a temporary injunction, 24 Tex.Jur. 124, § 87, especially if the requested relief be mandatory in nature. 24 Tex.Jr. 125, § 88; Lewis v. Hoerster, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 537. See Frels v. Consolidated Theatres, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 369.

The order appealed from is affirmed. ,.

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

NORVELL, Justice.

Appellant, John C. Gilson, claims a leasehold interest in a triangular tract of land situated in the City of Raymondville, Texas. He is using the same for a parking lo;t Near the point where two of the streets bounding the lot intersect, the.. Central Power and Light' Company has erected two poles. One is a live pole and supports a street light and the other is 'a dead pole -Which supports two signs. One sign was placed''on the pole by the Central Power an'd Light Company and serves to direct persons to the Company’s plant. The other advertises a hotel , operated by Paul R. Wimberly. Both poles are located in the ■space lying between a sidewalk .and the border of the -hard surface of the street.

The court below refused to grant a temporary injunction, prayed for by Gil-son, which would result in the removal of the dead pole and the signs attached thereto. -This order must be affirmed because the - record fails to disclose the existence of an emergency necessitating the granting of a temporary injunction, and for this reason, if for no other, it can not be held that the trial court abused its discretion in 'refusing the application. '

The office of the temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the controversy pending litigation, 24 Tex.Jur. 123, § 86, and not to finally determine property rights. In the absence of a showing of emergency or extreme necessity this Court will not reverse a trial, judge’s order, refusing a temporary injunction, 24 Tex.Jur. 124, § 87, especially if the requested relief be mandatory in nature. 24 Tex.Jr. 125, § 88; Lewis v. Hoerster, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 537. See Frels v. Consolidated Theatres, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 369.

The order appealed from is affirmed. ,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 S.W.2d 683, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 2206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilson-v-central-power-light-co-texapp-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack