*1
877
order, which,
it, does not
designated
support,
pre-
not
as child
it is
as we construe
sumably temporary alimony
by require
pay
attorney’s
authorized
relator to
the
fees.
Yet,
Family
section 3.59 of the
the
Code.
problems
Finally, we observe that all the
commitment order directs that relator be
in this casе seem to arise from the use of an
“$2,380
sup-
confined until he pays
for the
printed
recognize
We
inadequate
form.
port of
respect
his children.” In this
the
used in the
this form as one that has been
commitment order does not conform to the
many years,
but
County
courts of Dallas
charge alleged in the motion for contempt.
finding
a
failing
it is defective in
to include
order,
support
specific
of a
violation of the
also
that the
Relator
contends
com
included,
and,
attorney’s
if an
fee is to be
mitment order is
it requires
void because
amount of
provision finding the
contains no
him pay
attorney’s
аn
fee in addition to
ordering
a
attorney
reasonable
fee and
payments
by
the
required
inappropriate to
payment. The form is also
support
This contention is not
order.
well
than
any type
payment
enforce
other
holding
supreme
taken
view of the
ap-
support. Consequеntly,
child
this form
Helms,
parte
court in Ex
152 Tex.
pears
frequent
a
source of error.
be
(1953),
attorney’s
S.W.2d
that an
fee and other costs allowed as incidental to
recognizing
Many lawyers, apparently
part
of the payments necessary for
prac-
followed the
inadequacies,
these
have
support
may
of the children
be enforced
drawing
contempt
tice of
their own
orders
Helms,
contempt.
In view of
we do not
findings,
containing specific
and such orders
Neidert,
regard
(Tex.
In re
This order is insufficient require relator’s pays attorney’s
confinement until he order,
fee. The quoted notation in the how-
ever, not, itself, does render the order
otherwise void.
Relator further out that the writ of attachment under which he was DITTMER, Appellant, Paul H. сonfined, clerk, which was issued directs the sheriff to confine relator “until P, TEXAS, INC., E D SOURCE $2,380.00 paid he has amount back Appellee. plus attorney child fees of support $400.00.” argues He this writ shows that No. 20301. concerning attorney’s notation fee in Texas, Appeals Court of Civil require pay the order was intended to Dallas. ment as a condition of his release. He cites however, authority, support the view Feb. invalidity be may of a commitment established an error in the writ of at
tachment. We hold that this error in the validity
writ does not affect *2 and the
October 12, 1979. Defendant was issued November acknowledges that trial on the merits is set he he January but asserts that will be has no assurance that the сase says on that date. He he reached *3 set on the fears that because of other cases postponed will be so as day same this trial injunction in keep temporary to force whole of the remain- substantially for covenant, ing period expires which of 1, September beliеve that these circum We do not stances show an abuse of discretion. We judge giving for the case commend the trial precedence setting the on the mer-. trial Dallas, Timothy Kelley, appellant. E. for its within three months after the suit was light he did so in the of Apparently filed. Timothy Blakeley, Geary, Spenс- & Stahl decisions, our such as Reeder v. Interconti er, Dallas, appellee. for Co., 497, Mfg. 581 nental Plastics S.W.2d GUITTARD, J., Before C. and CARVER 1979, (Tex.Civ.App. writ), 499 no — Dallas STOREY, JJ. Miller, Corp. v. 547 and Charter Medical 1977, 77, (Tex.Civ.App. 79 S.W.2d — Dallas GUITTARD, Chief Justice. writ), emphasized an no in which we complains Defendant Paul provides Dittmer of a on the merits mоre early trial temporary injunction restraining temporary injunc him from relief from a expeditious EDP, competing plaintiff appeal with Tex- interlocutory Source tion than an because of as, placement computer pro- Inc. in the precedence injunction of to which cases fessionals in and within one hundred expiration miles are entitled. In view of the of city September Dallas. The suit is based on a the covenant on against covenant competition signed by recognition pre de- trial evident of such court’s cedence, fendant employee as an will may рresume we that the case Inc., 21, Region, alleged which is to January be be tried on or as soon after that “predecessor a prompt in interest” of with dis may date as be consistent EDP, Texas, question Inc. The position for of other cases entitled to similar our decision is judge precedence, post whether and that will not be abused his discretion in granting tempo- poned for trial of other cases on the docket. rary injunction preserve quo suppose the status reason to Consequently, we have no until a trial on the will merits. We find no that accom purpose abuse of discretiоn. whole plish substantially the Houston, v. suit. See Gonzales Norris Inc., (Tex.Civ.App. Duration of Restraint 575 112-13 S.W.2d 1978, writ). no —Houston Dist.] [14th grounds One of the defendant advances preferential suggested show abuse of discretion is that the tem- Counsel has injunction porary injunction treatment for trial of cases enables in that object mаy subject achieve the whole of its suit without the merits be to abuse hearing. plaintiffs principal a full In this connection defend- whose claims are temporary relief in order damages may ant out that the covenant runs two seek setting. prob- That years employment, preferential from terminatiоn of his to obtain a here, 1,1978. since which occurred Defend- lem is not involved relief. More- injunctive is for competing only ant started his own business claim 880
over, judges ample trial protectable discretion to tute assets. not manage according their dockets to the exi- withstanding change this in defendant’s gencies particular cases. duties, temporary we conclude in junction supported by holding authorities case, present In the although the advantage competitive employ an trial set the trial on merits with gains by employer’s ee with his contacts promptness hearing commendable after the justifies customers enforcement of a rea injunction, temporary on the an even better against competition sonable covenant after practice would have confer have a has employment terminated. Weber ence with counsel hearing before еvidence Co., Envelope Hesse 342 655 S.W.2d application temporary on the 1960, writ); Tex (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas with a view to obviating hearing on the McGoldrick, Storage as Ice & Co. v. application Cold by setting relief (Tex.Civ.App.—San an on the Anto merits. The interlocu S.W. *4 tory 8, 1979, proceeding ref’d). on Novembеr nio writ by characterized as counsel a “full eviden- tiary hearing.” The record before us indi 'Injury Probable fully developed. cates that the evidence was complains that further Defendant We see no reason the why same evidence proof proba pleading the and fails to show
cоuld presented not have been the court to ble in injury from violation covenant jury or final day. decision on that Such that it of appropriation fails to show an a trial disrupted would have docket no the plaintiff’s protectable interests defend more than the the hearing temporary In ant. this сonnection defendant injunction. if Presumably, parties the had employ out that he requested trial, plaintiff’s when left judge such an it, would ment he with no list of customers provided either the date took him set for or other made preliminary hearing proprietary or a few information and days later, only evidеntiary special and thus one no use any of methods or secrets. hearing required. would have been probable We conclude that the evidence of injury, weak, sustain though is sufficient to
Reasonableness of Restraint preserve trial to court’s discretion quo status until a trial. The testimo final Defendant contends the re that ny companies showed that the number of temporary injunc straint enforced in operating computer tion is facilities Dallas and unnecessary and be unreasonable engaged cause he had not busi within hundred miles from it is limited been in the ness of computer personnel placement although companies dur lists such are of ing years preceding the three termination anyone, person available the business of to of employment. his The shows evidence placement highly compet nel in this field is in assigned placement 1975 he was to with past itive defendant’s contacts and, personnel jobs, of in finance-related hiring prospective custom officers such although supervise employ he to continued competitive provides ers a definite advan placement per ees in engaged computer tage. testimony that he Defendant’s shows sonnеl, he had no more direct contacts with com making was calls to of the same some customers in that field. working panies he had when solicited plaintiff would continue and that he This does change in defendant’s duties we do so unless restrained. not, opinion, an abuse of our establish injury has probable hold that sufficient temporary discretion in in- granting injunctive justify relief shown junction. judge reasonably The could find Inter Reeder v. preserve quo. the status from the evidence that the defendant’s con- Co., Mfg. computer per- tacts continental Plastics 581 S.W.2d with customers in (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas placement aspеct sonnel busi- 498-99 writ). ness value to consti- were still sufficient
Evidence of Other Covenants expressly identify not “Source EDP” as EDP, Texas, Inc., plaintiff Source there is complains Defendant of the trial nothing in the record suggesting that a court’s exclusion of evidence that after he corporation third with a similar name was had signed the question, plain covenant in involved. Defendant testified at some adopted tiff employees a standard length fails to and the record show that he form against of covenant competition which not, ever asserted that was as al- limited the period of year restraint to one leged, the successor interest after termination of employment. He in EDP, Region, Inc. Western On this evi- sists that this evidence constitutes an ad dence, judge we hold did not mission that the two-year provid restraint inferring abuse his discretion in for the ed qúestion the covenant in is unreason purpose hear- аble in duration. We agree. do not The ing was the successor in inter- evidence shows that defendant was a est to Region, Inc. branch manager computer personnel and, therefore, entitled to enforce the cove- placement only and not had made substan question. nant in customers, tiаl contacts with but had been responsible for developing the business and Affirmed.
training employees. other The excluded ev ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
idence had probative little force. Before giving any weight, would have rehearing his motion for defend In had to determine whether any other em ant raises single contention that *5 ployees who signed had one-year covenants temporary injunction should be reformed to in situations similar to defendant’s and why expire September or on rendition plaintiff had limited duration of their cove judgment, of final whichever occurs first. nants year. to one We hold that the trial original On submission wе declined to re judge had discretion to go decline to into injunction form ground on that in view these collateral matters at the temporary of the trial court’s try evident intent to injunction hearing. merits at an date. On reconsidera
tion, however, we conclude that the order is Plaintiff’s Standing to Enforce Covenants technically in error in that beyond terms could continue period Finally, defendant asserts the covenant. we reform EDP, Texas, Source Inc. has no the order in respect. standing to enforce the covenant because the evidence fails to show is a objects reformatiоn, Plaintiff to the as- party to it. We conclude that serting that it petition has amended its in standing supported is by the evidence. De allege the trial court to that defendant’s fendant testified that he went to work for employment 31, terminated on December Region, Inc., 1978, 1978, and, rather September than in signed the сovenant in therefore, favor of that reformation in this court would corporation. paychecks Sometime later his foreclose a question fact on the date of began to read “Source EDP.” He could not termination which should be determined say when the corporate chаnged, structure the trial court. We do not view the date of but he understood that it was done for state interlocutory termination as an issue on this licensing purposes. He continued to work appeal. application injunc- Plaintiff’s for EDP” “Source until termination of his alleged tion employment that defendant’s employment organization with the September terminated in 1978and that the September, During the whole time years. duration the covenant was two It from his initial employment 1968 until is improper temporary injunction for a termination, his employer, engaged his granted was beyond this to continue record in the same business reported and he to the unlikely In the time. event that the person. Although same the evidence does disposed September case is not of before court, showing, proper on a relief. may grant further rehearing is granted
The motion for limit order reformed so as to court’s
the duration of the or until rendition merits, whichever judgment
final on the first.
occurs Jr., ux, STALEY, Appellants, et
Joe A. COMPANY,
The TERNS SERVICE INC., Appеllee. McCall, Wright Associ- George John & S. Prairie, ates, appellants. Grand No. 6131. Moe, Dawson, and Barbara Glenn A. Sodd Texas, Appeals of Civil Court Dawson, Corsicana, ap- Davis, &Sodd Waco. pellee. 21, 1980.
Feb. OPINION *6 27, 1980. Rehearing March Denied McDONALD,Chief Justice. appeal plaintiff-appellant
This is an court to treble from the refusаl in a plaintiff-appellant damages awarded Pro- Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer tection Act case.1 wife, pursuant to a Staley and Plaintiffs contract, purchased a collection written re- for a from defendant agency franchise $10,000.plus per- cited considerаtion receipts. monthly Plain- centage gross prosper apparently failed tiffs’ business 1) For plaintiffs sued defendant: contract; inducing 2) for fraud breach of contract; 3) plaintiffs to enter into the Trade Deceptive the Texas for violation of 17.46, et Tex. (Section seq., Practices Act 1973). Bus. & Com.Code findings made jury which Trial was to a as follows: summarized Legislature 21, 1973; 64th as amended May Section Code 1. Business & Commerce VTCA Legislature passed 17.41to 17.63as the 63rd