TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robinson & Watson v. Wingate

Robinson & Watson Et Al. v. W. J. Wingate Et Al.

Robinson & Watson v. Wingate, 83 S.W. 182 (Tex. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 28, 1904
Docket
No. Application No. 4411.
Judges
Williams
Citations
83 S.W. 18298 Tex. 2671904 Tex. LEXIS 249
Headnotes
Election—Injunction Against Canvassing Returns. Injunction will not lie to restrain the Commissioners Court from canvassing the returns and publishing the result of a local option election as-required by the statute, at suit of a licensed liquor dealer whose business would be prohibited by adoption of the law. (P. 268.)
Summary
Application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the First District, in an appeal from Orange County. Robinson & Watson, liquor dealers, sued Wingate, county judge, and the members of the Commissioners Court, to enjoin them from canvasing the votes and giving notice of the result of a local option election in Orange County. Relief was refused and they appealed, whereupon the judgment was affirmed. Appellants then applied for writ of error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Williams

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1908: 11910: 11912: 11916: 31917: 11918: 21919: 11922: 11931: 11937: 119082026peak 1916 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Waples v. Gilmore189 S.W. 122 (Tex. App. 1916)
  2. Ex Parte Barrett37 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. 1931)
  3. Hamilton v. Davis217 S.W. 431 (Tex. App. 1919)
  4. De Shazo v. Webb109 S.W.2d 264 (Tex. App. 1937)
  5. Fuller v. McHaney192 S.W. 1159 (Tex. App. 1917)
  6. Gilmore v. Waples188 S.W. 1037 (Tex. 1916)

Most recent

  1. De Shazo v. Webb109 S.W.2d 264 (Tex. App. 1937)
  2. Ex Parte Barrett37 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. 1931)
  3. Temple Lumber Co. v. Commissioners' Court of Sabine County239 S.W. 668 (Tex. App. 1922)
  4. Hamilton v. Davis217 S.W. 431 (Tex. App. 1919)
  5. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Trout206 S.W. 829 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1918)
  6. Moore v. Plott206 S.W. 958 (Tex. App. 1918)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list