Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Thomas S. WHITLOW, d/b/a Whitlow Brick Demolition Co., Appellant, v. W.M. "Mac" POLLEY, Appellee.

SUMMERS, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting a temporary injunction. The order enjoined appellant and the acting sheriff of Smith County from proceeding with sale under execution of a certain tract of real property until further order of the court.

In its order granting the injunction, the trial court provided:

This order shall not be effective unless and until Plaintiff executes and files with the Clerk in conformity with the law, a bond payable to the Defendants in the amount of Five Hundred and No/100 ($500.00) Dollars which shall be signed by good and sufficient sureties as required by law.

The transcript does not reflect that appellee executed and filed with the clerk a temporary injunction bond to defendant nor that a writ of injunction was issued by the clerk.

Under Rule 684 a bond is required as a condition precedent to the issuance of a temporary injunction. Furthermore, it is settled law in this state that a temporary injunction issued without a bond is void. Goodwin v. Goodwin, 456 S.W.2d 885, 886 (Tex. 1970); Lancaster v. Lancaster, 155 Tex. 528, 291 S.W.2d 303, 308 (1956).

This and all other references to rules are to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Since appellee did not file a bond in compliance with the court's order and Rule 684, he failed to satisfy the condition required for issuance of the writ of injunction. Thus, the court's order granting a temporary injunction has not been implemented as authorization for the issuance of such injunction and is unenforceable. We hold that, standing alone, such order is a nonappealable interlocutory order within the meaning of Rule 385 and Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 4662. This court is, therefore, without jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WHITLOW v. POLLEY
(Feb 29, 1984)