Turner v. Turner

105 S.W. 237, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 391, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 512
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 6, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 105 S.W. 237 (Turner v. Turner) 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
Turner v. Turner, 105 S.W. 237, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 391, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 512 (Tex. Ct. App. 1907).

Opinion

FISHER, Chief Justice.

—The appellant has on file a suit in the District Court of Robertson County against appellee for divorce. As 'a part of the controversy it is alleged in her petition that she and the defendant owned certain community property, and she avers that she fears that the defendant, during the pendency of the suit, will dispose of the community property, and she prays for an injunction restraining him from so doing. She also requests that he be required to return an inventory and make an accounting of the community estate, and that a receiver be appointed.

The judge of the District Court where the suit is pending granted a temporary writ of injunction, but in vacation, on motion, dissolved the same. It is from this order of dissolution that this appeal is taken, which right is authorized by the Act of April 16, 1907.

It is contended by appellant that by virtue of article 2984 of the Revised Statutes, as well as from the facts as stated in the record, the trial court erred in dissolving the temporary writ; We think the appellant is correct in both contentions. We can not find where the article in question has been directly construed, but the intimation is strong in Wright v. Wright, 3 Texas, 168, that the purpose of the statute was, upon averment of the plaintiff in her petition that the de-fendant, during the progress of the suit, is likely to dispose of the community property, that it becomes the duty of the trial court to issue its restraining order preventing such disposition. This seems to be thé meaning of this provision of the statute. But, however, if we are mistaken in this view, we are clearly of the opinion that the facts, as found in the record, were of such a nature as would have justified the trial court in keeping alive the temporary writ. Having reached this conclusion, we suppose the trial court, when the case is returned to him, will.make such orders as he may see fit, requiring the appellee to return an inventory of the property and to account for the same, and to make such orders as the court may see fit to make with reference to the appointment of a receiver.

As we construe the statute our jurisdiction is merely limited to a review of the action of the trial court in dissolving the injunction. The statute permits an appeal from an order in vacation either granting or dissolving an injunction; and we find nothing in this or any other statute, in view of the fact that our jurisdiction is thus limited, to authorize us to review the action of the trial court in failing or refusing to appoint a receiver.

The judgment of the trial court will be reversed, with instructions *393 to that court to keep alive its temporary injunction during the pend-ency of the suit under the present bond, or such additional bond as the trial court may see proper to require the appellant to execute..

Reversed with instructions.

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

Related

Rafferty v. Finstad
903 S.W.2d 374 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Janelli v. Bond
225 S.W.2d 824 (Texas Supreme Court, 1950)
Cox v. Cox
107 S.W.2d 1031 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Ames v. Ames
64 S.W.2d 1067 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Dakan v. Dakan
53 S.W.2d 682 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Zanes v. Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. of Texas
49 S.W.2d 922 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Helm v. Helm
291 S.W. 648 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
City of Brownsville v. Fernandez
202 S.W. 112 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Gulf Nat. Bank v. Bass
177 S.W. 1019 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Swearingen v. Swearingen
165 S.W. 16 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 S.W. 237, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 391, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-turner-texapp-1907.