Roberts v. Temple Trust Company

Court of Appeals of Texas

Roberts v. Temple Trust Company

50 S.W.2d 363, 1932 Tex. App. LEXIS 502

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 13, 1932

DocketNo. 7793.

StatusPublished

This text of 50 S.W.2d 363 (Roberts v. Temple Trust 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

Roberts v. Temple Trust Company, 50 S.W.2d 363, 1932 Tex. App. LEXIS 502 (Tex. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BLAIR, J.

This appeal is from an order sustaining appellee’s motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. The appeal presents the same character of proceedings and the same questions of law as wer-e this day determined by this court in Temple Trust Company v. Powers, 50 S.W.(2d) 362. The cases were presented on oral argument as one case. However, it may be here stated that in this case the motion to dissolve the injunction was granted, while in the Powers Case the motion to dissolve was overruled. The briefs explain the contrary rulings .upon the ground that, while the alleged usurious payments in the Powers Case were more than enough to extinguish the entire loan, they were not so in the instant case; and the trial court was of *364 the opinion that the Temple Trust Company had the right to maintain suit for the balance due on this loan in Bell county, where the notes and loan contract were payable and enforceable by their terms. Whether this ruling is right or wrong, we need not determine, because the trial court should have dissolved the injunction under the rules of law announced in the Powers Case; and upon the authority of that decision we affirm the judgment in this case.

Affirmed.

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

BLAIR, J.

This appeal is from an order sustaining appellee’s motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. The appeal presents the same character of proceedings and the same questions of law as wer-e this day determined by this court in Temple Trust Company v. Powers, 50 S.W.(2d) 362. The cases were presented on oral argument as one case. However, it may be here stated that in this case the motion to dissolve the injunction was granted, while in the Powers Case the motion to dissolve was overruled. The briefs explain the contrary rulings .upon the ground that, while the alleged usurious payments in the Powers Case were more than enough to extinguish the entire loan, they were not so in the instant case; and the trial court was of *364 the opinion that the Temple Trust Company had the right to maintain suit for the balance due on this loan in Bell county, where the notes and loan contract were payable and enforceable by their terms. Whether this ruling is right or wrong, we need not determine, because the trial court should have dissolved the injunction under the rules of law announced in the Powers Case; and upon the authority of that decision we affirm the judgment in this case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 S.W.2d 363, 1932 Tex. App. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-temple-trust-company-texapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack