Robinson & Watson v. Wingate

83 S.W. 182, 98 Tex. 267, 1904 Tex. LEXIS 249
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1904
DocketApplication No. 4411.
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 83 S.W. 182 (Robinson & Watson v. Wingate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robinson & Watson v. Wingate, 83 S.W. 182, 98 Tex. 267, 1904 Tex. LEXIS 249 (Tex. 1904).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.

After a very mature and careful ■ consideration of the application, we are of the opinion, for the reasons given in the opinion of Associate Justice Gill, that the Court of Civil Appeals reached the correct conclusion, and that an injunction does not lie to restrain the Commissioners Court from canvassing the returns and publishing the notice of the result of a local option election as required by the statute. The reasons may be summed up in the conclusion that there is in the performance of these statutory duties no invasion, in a legal sense, of the property rights of complainants as licensed liquor dealers, whether the election is open to attack in other ways or not. Those reasons are elaborated in the clear and able opinion referred to, and further discussion here would only involve the statement of additional or perhaps the same arguments in different form, tending to the same conclusion. We are satisfied, both upon principle and authority, of the correctness of the views which prevailed in the Court of Civil Appeals, and therefore refuse the application for writ of error.

Application refused.

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

Related

De Shazo v. Webb
109 S.W.2d 264 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Ex Parte Barrett
37 S.W.2d 741 (Texas Supreme Court, 1931)
Temple Lumber Co. v. Commissioners' Court of Sabine County
239 S.W. 668 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Hamilton v. Davis
217 S.W. 431 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Trout
206 S.W. 829 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1918)
Moore v. Plott
206 S.W. 958 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Fuller v. McHaney
192 S.W. 1159 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Gilmore v. Waples
188 S.W. 1037 (Texas Supreme Court, 1916)
Waples v. Gilmore
189 S.W. 122 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
League v. Brazoria County Road Dist. No. 13
187 S.W. 1012 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
City of Dallas v. Dallas Consolidated Street Railway Co.
148 S.W. 292 (Texas Supreme Court, 1912)
Parrish v. Ralls
133 S.W. 933 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1910)
Merrill v. Savage
109 S.W. 408 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 S.W. 182, 98 Tex. 267, 1904 Tex. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-watson-v-wingate-tex-1904.