*1 467 probate This is a suit to aside the of will. Based set jury findings capacity testamentary the testatrix lacked unduly influenced, and was court set the district the will aside. trial court was affirmed grounds. only Civil 330 2d 484. The as- both S.W. signments (1) no here are that there was evidence of error testamentary capacity; (2) lack there was no evidence of undue influence. testamentary
Because we think there was evidence of lack of capacity issue, jury Ap- sufficient to raise peals testimony regarding reached the correct result. The undue dignity influence does not rise to the of “some It evidence.” hence, suspicion law, raises no more than a surmise or Irvine, is no evidence. Joske v. 91 Texas S.W. ; Younger (1898) Inc., Myers, Bros. v. 159 Texas (1959). S.W. application refused, for writ of error is therefore reversible error.
Opinion delivered March 1960. Roy A. v. Railroad Gardner Et Al.
No. A-7734. Decided March (333 585) S.W. 2d Series *2 Moody, McKay Avery, Dan McKay, & and John J. all of Austin, for Relator. Wilson, Attorney General, Wildenthal, Jr.,
Will John As- Attorney General, sistant Railroad for Commission Stayton Stayton, Christie, Black & and John W. Mitchell and for Co., Austin, Respondents. all Mitchell opinion delivered the of the Court. Mr. Justice Greenhill brings Roy Dis- Gardner direct 126th County. trict does not come Travis Because the appeal, not within our limited we do direct controversy reach the merits of and must dismiss appeal. gas brought Matagorda County De- in a in in well
Gardner as cember 1958. the well The Railroad Commission classified discovery well or E-3 in the Bruce-Flo Frio sand. With classification, produce well was for 18 months entitled potential at the of its under statewide rules rate 25% to sell the Railroad Gardner contracted 25 of Commission. Company. production to Tennessee Transmission Gas gas pro- vicinity other wells
In the there were number of ducing These wells were Palacios sand or reservoir. orders, proration in this field were wells under fieldwide produce substantially which less than well Gardner’s allowed being regarded separate in reservoir. producers in the December at instance On field, particularly Mitchell Palacios was not determined well Gardner’s Railroad Commission all, was in a common reservoir separate after but in a reservoir Hence well was Palacios field. Gardner’s in the with those and was to the same discovery a new field well in in As a others the Palacios field. proration orders as fieldwise redetermination, Gardner’s allow- the Commissioner’s result of approximately 4 million cut from gas production was able 600,000. approximately In day dollars per feet cubic day approximately per production from cents, $800 his it cut day. roughly per $100 suit 126th Dis- filed in the On December Gardner County aside the of the Com- trict to set Court of Travis placed discovery well the common Palacios his in mission drastically production. his and so reduced allowable reservoir order of On December formalized its 15. It determined that well was December Gardner’s area. common reservoir with the wells in the Palacios January 1, 1960, Judge Roberts, presiding On Jack Court, 126th District entered a
enjoining the enforcement of the Commission’s orders De- agreement By cember 15 and of counsel the re- straining during kept order was force until and the trial of the case. *3 Feburary 3, trial, Judge 1960,
On after a Roberts announced judgment and his entered that the Commission’s orders of they December 15 and 30 were ad initio: void that were arbi- trary, illegal, reasonably supported by not were substantial judgment February permanently enjoined evidence. The enforcing the Commission from those orders. day, 3, February Commission, On the persons same the
aligned it, excepted judgment gave with to the notice of appeal Appeals sitting to the Court of Civil at Austin. It was position Commission, Attorney the and the General representing it, required that because the post State supersedeas bond, giving the of the notice of then and there terminated the trial placed the court and It was and is further the contention of the Commission and giving Attorney performed General that of notice of supersedeas of a writ of function and that February including permanent of the district court of injunction, thereupon superseded. They point out that not, prior grant judgment, court did in- continuing junction or enter an order restraining judgment. after order February to, Judge later In his order of referred Roberts prior entry that
recited requested temporary injunction counsel Gardner to con- quo discovery well tinue the status Gardner’s was a [that well larger separate allowable], field and entitled to the but he grant did not had no informa- because “the Court * * * attempt tion effect that would change jurisdiction during re-assert of the case to * * *” parties. status February entry by Judge After the Roberts on Commission, General, upon Attorney advice from the void, judgment, holding determined that the its that orders were superseded. thereupon had been orders It determined its complied December 15 and with 30 should be Gardner upon appeal. finally until the others matter was determined through February 8, 1960, Commission, So chief gas engineer, wrote He told that the Commis- Gardner. Gardner putting sion’s Palacios well in common Gardner’s pool went into effect on the Commis- [back] giving Judge judgment. sion’s notice of Roberts’ said, placing letter proration then “Therefore we well are (Frio sand) E effective schedule for the Palacios 1960.” agent At about the time the Commission wired its same that “You Houston are advised [as * * *” and he should to Gardner’s dissolved has been well] accordingly”; i.e., pro- he should the Commission’s “act enforce against field ration order for the Palacios Gardner. day, February promptly. same he
Gardner reacted On the *4 partial Judge filed in Roberts’ court a cotion for new trial. particularly prayed for He set other facts and out above and against restraining temporary injunction temporary order pending appeal preserve to Commission’s quo. status 8, day, February Judge such same Roberts entered
On the restraining He set the matter down for a order. hearing February temporary injunction on the matter of the for Roberts, Judge Feburary by was within on 15. This action February days entry his on 3. of ten ally, Christie, and its Mitchell & The Commission They promptly dissolve equal moved to swiftness. reacted with restraining Judge motion dissolve was order. Their Roberts’ day, February 10. On same overruled on Appeals at Austin of in the Third Court Civil its allies filed against Judge prohibition Roberts. application for of writ granted February Appeals On the Court of Civil prohibition. opinion, writ of Its Railroad Commission v. Roberts, length sets at the facts and S.W. out vari- Judge ous orders concluded above described. That court superseded by February Roberts’ of been had giving of Appeals, notice of of Court Civil temporary restraining February that his denied right supersede judgment. the Commission its The Court Appeals opinion of Civil was of the further that its giving had attached to the case notice of February prohibition on State 3. Hence it issued the writ “necessary under Article 1823 as one which was enforce jurisdiction” the court. The order of the Court Civil Judge enforcing restrained Roberts from his taking February any order of 8 and “from further action of any kind respect whatsoever with to” the matter which would interfere with its or which would interfere rights way Judge supersede with Commission to February Roberts’
No was taken to this Court from that order. Indeed provision is there for an from a writ prohibition issued Court of Civil Following opinion Ap- and order of the Court of Civil peals, we come to the order which is the of this direct appeal. day On after the action the Court Judge Appeals, Civil Roberts dissolved his re- straining order of and directed that Gardner take nothing by partial virtue his motion for request new trial and injunctive pending appeal. relief
Judge February such Roberts entered order of 12 in com- pliance Ap- with the writ of of the Court of Civil “* * * peals. plainly states, therefore, His order of compliance with said order of the Honorable adjudge court must” Appeals, the Commission “directive” portion case, main the merits of the dissolved. *5 February compulsion
It is this order of issued under of Appeals, of is the Court Civil of the direct Judge appeal, of Roberts on hold- appeal ing order. The of invalid Commission’s portion main on case, the merits of on is may appeal reach this Court appeal jurisdiction at a later date. turn to our We now direct Judge from Roberts’ 12. jurisdiction appeal a limited The of this on direct [2 one.1 The amendment of 1940 our constitution Vernon’s. Const, Legislature have 46] Ann. the of Texas states that the shall power provide an from for a direct court interlocutory granting denying any order or an or court permanent grounds” “on the of the constitution- ality any validity unconstitutionality or or or statute invalidity any any state or order issued administrative any agency under statute of this State. Legislature amendment, Pursuant to the constitutional authorizing a from an order enacted Article 1738a direct granting denying applicable' injunction, of a trial court or an ground validity invalidity any here, istrative admin- “on the or by any order” under issued state statute board this State.2 dependent jurisdiction Our on direct is therefore wording and limited to of the amendment constitutional
and Article 1738a. argues that we have Commission
two reasons: require admin- 1. the constitution and statute “an Both agency. order,” statute, It issued under State istrative litigation only] [and real orders in are those contends that the depriving of December 15 and 30 the Gard- discovery putting it in common ner Palacios status and well of validity reservoir, are orders and that these presently Court Civil Commis- telegram February position is that the letter and sion’s a statute within are orders issued under not commission simply meaning and Article 1738a but are the constitution —Thus, where the administrative has no has held it this Court having jurisdiction, body promulgated state-wide an administrative was not Dist., Bryson Underground High 297 S.W. Water Con. Texas Plains v. really 117; injunction appealed than an from is mandamus rather 2d where the 67; Garrison, injunction, and where the order- 152 Texas 256 S.W. Boston v. body appealed but was one an administrative State is not order of ordinance, Teichman, city zoning acting city McGraw v. board under 2d 282. 214 S.W. 147 Texas prescribe necessary this Court rules of authorized further 2.—The statute procedure promulgating appeals. This the Court did Rule 499a. direct for such opinion throughout Emphasis is ours.
473 pursuant of December directives issued to the main orders judgment Judge of superseding and 30 and Roberts’ the holding below, not decide we need 3. Because of our point. this grant- require that the
2. Both the statute constitution and ground ing injunctive “on the or denial of relief be constitutionality unconstitutionality any statute or grounds invalidity validity or or state [on of] order” a administrative State board. Judge ground the true Roberts’ order
What Judge was 12? Is it that that the Commission Roberts believed right and 30 should be and that orders of December 15 kept void pending appeal, he had held them ab force —after ground initio, illegal, arbitrary capricious? was Or his order writ of Court commanding inescapable that it him it? think it is to enter We Judge en- the latter. Roberts was The order itself recites it tered because he “must.” construing expressly
There are no cases the words “on the grounds has of” in constitution and statute. But declined in at in which words least two cases bearing. Lipscomb (1954), Flaherty a Texas have had In v. bring plaintiff sought 2d direct S.W. blacklisting regarded him which he as constitutionality of a a bail attacked bondsman. He statute, Procedure. Article of the Criminal 277 Sec. 7 Code of ground validity But the on the of the based sustaining upon ground invalidity or of the of the statute judicata. plea res This of a in abatement the matter was jurisdiction. it had Court held no
Similarly, (1955), 154 Texas in Corona v. Garrison bring appeal from attempted direct S.W. Corona denying proceedings by an to halt Safety Department him declared habitual to have Public opinion says, “Appellant violator of traffic laws. This Court’s ground seeks to sustain his direct here [Corona] constitutionality 22, Article questions the of Section that he here). deter- 6687b, (Emphasis This added V.A.C.S.” denied, however, not on mined, injunction was ground statute, that the ground validity but on of the adequate remedy injuries and had an had suffered defendant jurisdiction. had no held that this Court at law. It was clearly appears Judge It to us that the order of Roberts of February invalidity ground upon validity 12 was not based or pursuant of an admintsrative order issued to statute grounds constitutionality *7 of this or State the of was, or the unconstitutionality statute, fact, of a but in issued on the ground of the writ of of Civil Court jurisdiction. not, This therefore, Court does are have Since we jurisdiction grant appeal, ancillary without we cannot prayed by appeal. relief for The Gardner incident to his direct appeal jurisdiction. is dismissed for want of Opinion delivered March
Mr. dissenting. Justice Smith respectfully cogni- by I dissent. This Court its refusal to take governing zance of the Rules of Civil Procedure trial spirit enabling private moving firm, civil cases is ally change Texas, of the Railroad Commissionof to the status quo by disrupt orderly court, as found the trial to ally-defendant of the case in the district court. That is the firm represented by attorney Mitchell & an by aggrieved its choice.The result reached the court enables one party by perfecting appeal the devious method of an to Appeals, exercising right Court of Civil instead of of direct appeal 499-a, to this court under Rule Texas Rules of Civil Pro- legal cedure, just right party to defeat the of the other litigation complete pending to the to trial of the issues still pertinent By judgment appellees at all in times the trial court. choice the gave appeal notice of from an adverse to Appeals, and, of 1960. obtained from prohibition restraining' court a writ of the Honorable Jack hearing appellant’s partial Roberts from motion for new trial temporary hearing appellant’s and from for motion pending appeal. Appellant’s appeal direct to this court is not granting the action of Court of Civil in prohibition, appeal writ of but is direct from the erroneous petition refusing grant appellant’s action of the trial court to injunctive auxiliary protect for relief to its Febru- ary by 3, 1960, and the status the trial found court’s judgment. Such action the trial court was with no deliberate right deprive appellant and com- intention of his full to plete but trial under the Constitution laws pursue only in view course for court to honorable though orders, erroneous, contained even the directive judgment superior by court. issued it render record sequence events as shown appellant direct remedy only clear that to the left the error under to correct this court Rule 499-a appellant’s jurisdiction. court This has below. court Appeals, which relegated certainly is not of Civil court, protecting assumption that because of the erroneous jurisdiction, prohibi- authority its it issue a writ of had the orderly interrupted pro- completely tion. This action has at time in the trial pending cedure of a trial still cause using appellees apnarently court. The are now with success weapon as a Appeals’ Court of Civil of their deprive with which of the direct this court of 499-a, supra. Ap- appellant authorized to under Rule pellees permitted the forum of review should be to select especially appellant’s appeal decision, of it is where adverse utterly impossible obvious it would *8 adequate obtain in relief the Court of Civil Judge by judgment The correctness of the rendered Jack February determine, on is us to but the Roberts not for paramount acting question appellees, is: for them- Shall Christie, Mitchell, by selver and the un- the firm of Mitchell & precedented giving contention that the mere of notice of by 3, 1960, automatically super- the Commission on suspended and trial? seded complete up leading the final A recitation of events the on by February 12, in 1960 is order. trial court phases important some of The court omits reference to occurring case, events after Febru- and recitation significance ary 3, point up the 1960 fails to result largely prohibition issued erroneous issuance of the writ of premise by appellees of the false advanced because notice of given automatically ended jurisdiction of the the trial transferred court’s and Appeals, thereby depriving the entire case to the injunctive grant auxiliary and to hear court of quo. the status relief to maintain began January 18, and on of this case
The trial February 3, that “the trial court found action 1960 the (Frio merging Bruce-Flo Texas in Railroad Commission Matagorda Sand) Field, (Frio “E” E-3) into the Palacios Field ordering existing field rules for County, in and (Frio Sand) Bruce-Flo effective the Sand “E” Field Palacios beginning, illegal, void, E-3) null, from the (Frio Field was and of no force and effect.” The declared void order the Com- mission had cutting appellant’s had the production effect of materially. (the original gas On was well brought during 1958), appellant’s December well classi- was fied discovery Railroad well. It was separate Bruce-Flo, found in a (the E-3) reservoir Frio gas from other per wells. The well was entitled to flow at 25 potential cent of for 18 months. The flow was some four million per day, bringing cubic approximately feet income $800 per day. Commission, The declared void the Railroad apparently issued cut Christi, at the instance of Mitchell & appellant’s production 600,000 down to about cubic feet per day appellant’s proportionately. reduced income Christi, firm of Mitchell & Mitchell intervened in this suit al- leging it had an Therefore, interest matter. it is to be assumed that the effect of the orders of December December orders, the declared void which given have by merely giving been new life and reinstated notice appeal, to increase the income of Mitchell & deprive Mitchell and of an income based on flow per at potential cent of for 18 months. quo 1960 found the status “And, be as follows: appearing it further that the parties, just prior status Commission action time, comvlained is one nlaintiff gas producing his well under and virtue of Statewide Rules [4,000.000 24 and 25 cubic and not under and bv virtue feet. *9 [600,000 of (Frio the field Sand) rules of the Palacios “E” Field feet], finding, appearing, cubic and it also and the Court seeking the apply Commission action said field rules to plaintiff’s gas well, by as evidenced the of instruments December 15, (herein and specifically 1959 December more described) illegal, permanent null and void and that a in * * *. ” junction should issue findings, judg-
Pursuant to such the trial court entered its defendant-intervenor, Christie, ment that the Mitchell Mitchell & nothing by intervention, Co. take reason of its and further ordered: members, “(5) and its The Railroad Commission
* * * enjoined herein, permanently defendants are and restrained enforcing, attempting placing in effect and from enforce, maintaining keeping in force action to and from or or Railroad effect the action and orders of the Commission by 14, 1959, as evidenced December Texas taken on heretofore by 15, 1959, also evidenced letter December Commission ‘Special Order 30, 1959, captioned instrument December (Frio E-3) the Palacios merging Field into (Frio the Bruce-Flo de- Texas’; and these Matagorda County, Field, Sand) “E” enjoined and restrained permanently likewise are fendants directives, whatsoever, issuance taking any whether action or orders orders, allowable proration proration or schedules, otherwise, have the schedules, or which would enforc- effect of lJf, or action December ing described described 15,1959, or the December the described letter order of plaintiff 30, 1959, instrument or order December insofar as the concerned; gas gas well is and his in well identified (E-3) Field, Mata- Beaverson, Bruce-Flo No. Gardner-Lowe pipe producing by line connec- Texas, presently gorda County, Company.” (Emphasis tion added.) Transmission with Tennessee Gas previously appellant-Gardner had that the It should noted be production to Ten- 4,000,000 contracted to sell the feet cubic entered on nessee The decree of the Court Gas. issued on undisturbed, the edict but left contract February 8, 1960, by the advice of the Commission Attorney General, Mitchell approved the firm of entitled to firm was declared that & effect ignored time, “something” “nothing”, and, same at the instead of the status to maintain of the trial court entered discharged quo. The granting given by surety him on on the bond liability restraining thereon. temporary further orders from agreed that the inception trial it was From January to remain in restraining issued on order p.m., unless January at 2:00 and effect until full force agreement court. This further sooner dissolved was to remain means judgment entered pending trial. The effect temporary restrain- dissolving provisions 1960 contained assumed contrary, no doubt ing the trial court order. On necessity respected without would be rights injunction until expressly perpetuating Incidentally, tem- appeal. parties could determined *10 ap- express provisions that restraining porary order contains gas in produced overproduction up pellant the must make validity the hearing the sustained on the event the court attack and under upon by the Railroad orders relied brought by appellant. suit As the February 3, 1960, matter appellant stood on had filing obtained full relief and had no cause for the of motion However, new trial. 1960 the Railroad Com- Texas, acting through Engineer, mission of its ad- Chief Gas appellant advising dressed a placing letter to that “we are proration well (Frio on the schedule for the Palacios “E” Sand) effective This was letter written on Attorney advice of the General. The advice was contained in advising among letter addressed to the Railroad Commission it things other signing judgment that “At the time notice given the Commission to the Austin behalf of judgment. giving as is shown on notice had superseding effect of Judge. Thereuvon, restraining having District expired temporary injunction and having entered, been longer Commission was no any preventing under en- restraint question.” (Emphasis its order added.) in Both forcement of letters juris- were written at a time when the trial had court grant restraining diction to entertain motions to injunctions orders and any temporary and to enter also motions to dissolve injunctions might
orders or have been granted. fact, In the court had to issue such orders necessary as it prevent should deem to a destruction of the sub- ject controversy matter of the as well as to maintain the status But, event, quo. for the first time on Febru- ary filing necessity 1960 was forced with a motion for complete prevent new trial to destruction of the just days Appellant timely he had obtained five filed such before. setting alleged motion that new out had arisen. It was facts true, “show, the facts and it is the said have defendants begun plaintiff course of conduct calculated force this comply with the orders and action declared this court to be illegal, wholly illegal void and wrongful, which course conduct is Court, destroys
usurps great parties, true reparable and ir- status and will result * * * alleged plaintiff .” It was harm the plaintiff present to the court could not sooner discover partial new new evidence made the basis of the motion for until that such were not in for the reason facts existence presented the court on 1960. The motion was day same the court entered and on that ancillary temporary provided that order. The order temporary restraining in full remain force was to Febuary 1960, until 10 a.m. on 15th dav and effect cause appellees appear on that date and show commanded Although granted. why temporary injunction should *11 Restraining signed Temporary traditional form of court hearing Order, held on contemplated to be the court and the new evidence was to one to hear be 3, February judgment determine not whether or incorporating the extent should be modified to although matter, required, not therein. For that Appellant ad- appellees trial. could have filed motion for new hearing partial mo- request for a on his dressed notice of his attorney Railroad tion for new trial to the for the Commission Attorney Mitchell. Mitchell & to the for February awaiting hearing In held on lieu of ordered February filed the Railroad Commission alleging its motion to dissolve the previously that final had entered and notice of been given, had been and that the notice of had the vesting superseding effect of and of ex- entered jurisdiction clusive over the matter and all issues in Austin, in the at Texas. cause Court Civil temporary injunction court the motion overruled to dissolve jurisdiction. partial and held that it had not This left lost motion for heard on new to be 1960. The February stopped writ of issued on hearing trial, on the motion for new and forced the trial court appellees’ to in effect sustain motion to dissolve to not ground hear the motion for new trial on the the notice of all transferred matters authority No cited either letters supporting 1960 to trial court or this court presented by the contention that under such circumstances as juris- this record that the Railroad can re-assume Commission giving parte its ex orders and the mere of notice diction of appeal stop proceeding with the trial court law expressly in its order of a lawsuit. The trial court stated over- ruling Ancillary Temporary Restrain- the motion to Dissolve ing (on February 8th that “the Order * * * 1960) that the had no information to the effect during attempt to re-assert would * ** change parties .” the case the status granting temporary res- The action of the trial court in training overruling appellees’ to dissolve motion order and in order, to hear the court such of the intention of is indicative previously partial set trial on the date motion for new trial or denying for new enter the motion to grant either judgment. that motion only a new In the motion and enter against trial, the Febru- relief new asked for ary order, against 8th Commission but for relief the De- also adjudi- cember 15th and December 30th orders which had been cated to be void. February 12, 1960, legal On the trial denied court effect *12 injunction appellant’s and refused to hear motion for new trial. appeal. This court has this Article 1738a (and Constitution) only requires appeal from be * * * * * * denying “An interlocutory injunction order an * * * * * * ground validity of the administrative order * * * by any issued requires State Commission.” Rule 499-a * * * * * * only “present appeal validity of an ad- * * *
ministrative order when the same shall have arisen * * * denying reason of the order aof trial court an interlocu- * * * tory injunction.” appeal denying temporary This injunction is from an order a (and denying right right a a trial question to of the thereto), by which, “presents” appeal virtue of the uncon- stitutionality 6049c; of Article Annotated Vernon’s Civil Stat- prohibiting appellant any utes of when construed right try during question stay appeal out the effectiveness of the judgment orders declared administrative void 499a, Rule Texas Rules of See Civil Procedure. denying
This is a valid from an order injunction upholding validity of the Commission order jurisdiction February 8, 1960, entered after the of the courts had attached. The directive of 1960 was Com- question mission order. This the fundamental involves of the force and effectiveness of an administrative adjudged by a court void. The Railroad Commission attempting enforce Mitchell Mitchell are still & 30, 1959, Commission’s orders of December 15 both having question of said orders declared void. The arises: been during Does a void order ? of a revive Does judgment declaring an authorize the administrative order void and orders to enforce such Commission to issue new directives a authority answer is The has void order? The NO. Commission controversy and issue to resume attempting place an declared new into effect directives II, Article Constitution void the trial court. See Section jurisdiction are attempts exercise All to continue to of Texas. al., Texas 2d void. v. et S.W. See Stewart Smith Commission, 945; Texas Railroad & Co. v. Stanolind Oil Gas App., appellees Civ. er. contend that S.W. ref. The ways pend- there are injunction for the to obtain ing appeal. may cases Such assertion have been true cited, how, ruling I but ask the face of the Court of Appeals granting ground on the writ of jurisdiction, the trial court had lost could such relief been have obtained in the trial court? question validity, force,
The of the and effectiveness of all the orders issued Commission the entire matter ancillary of question controversy appeal. involved in this direct validity of the orders December is December 1960 and inseparably enmeshed appeal, in this trial court has grant refused to ap- pellee reassuming jurisdiction. Appellees state in their they brief that enjoined enjoying are the fruits “be supersedeas”. supersedeas fruits in this case will be *13 taking away appellant act 3,400,000 some cubic feet gas judgment which under the court 1960 belongs appellant, delivering portion it aor thereof to Mitchell all & under and virtue of the void orders involved.
Appellant protection is entitled to have jurisdic- full tion of the appealed courts to which he has from the orders of during litigation. the entire The actually Commission, courts vacated the orders of the and the administrative entitled to be free from further ac- City Wright, tion the Commission. Dallas v. See 120 Texas 190, 973, 976; Flannery State, App., 36 2d v. S.W. Texas Civ. 1052, ref.; Ry. 2d American er. F. v. Gulf C. & S. Co. S.W. Sugar Refining Company, App., 1030, Texas 2d Civ. S.W. er, ref. jurisdiction ancillary trial court had over this contro- though versy appealed even the main case any Appeals. jurisdiction Civil This does not in manner con- flict or interfere with the of the Court with Appeals. entirely separate controversy this is an Civil Since maintaining standpoint from the status when considered right granting stay, not in court does degree infringe upon Court of Civil temporary injunction, especially proceeding for trial, timely connection with motion new filed in when order, pending appeal administrative proceeding is a free the main Pacific works case. See Kuykendall, Tel. Ed. & Tel. Co. v. L. 265 U.S. Sup. It issued 553. follows that the writ of Ct. Court of was and is of no force effect. erroneous, Since the 1960 was this case should be instructions remanded court with proceed appellant’s in- prayer to trial for a junction against to continue in force and effect the Commission enforcing taken it from its orders actions both February 3, 1960, and from before and after taking any quo pending action to the status a decision disturb by the trial court.
Opinion delivered March 1960. Bobby Ex Parte Threet. Gene No. A-7611. Decided March (333 361) S.W. Series