Southern Traffic Bureau v. Thompson

(cid:127) in ownership land pleaded Tatum quieted. prayed his title -and volved estab deeds placed in He evidence carefully consid lished his title.- reversible and believe

ered' this case presented. points error not shown af- -the trial court judgment '

firmed. BUREAU TRAFFIC

SOUTHERN THOMPSON. TRAFFIC v. SOUTHERN

THOMPSON BUREAU. 12109.

No. Appeals Texas. Civil

Court of Antonio. San 21, 1950.

June Aug. 30,

Rehearing Denied Fischer, Wood, Burney Glass, & Cor-

pus Christi, Oakleaf, Smith McAllen, & North, Corpus Jr., Christi, C. L. Ham- John Lowe, Austin, appellant. ilton for Strickland, Wilkins, Mills, Hall & Mis- sion, appellee. for NORVELL, Justice.

This suit legality involves the and va lidity operation adopted' of a method of Traffic Southern Bureau in presenting prosecuting rail .car appeal involved,-but A riers. cross we will convenience refer to Southern Traffic Bureau Guy - Thompson appellee. Thompson A. group trustee railroads known - Lines, appointed Pacific Missouri. with Section accordance 77 the Bank “(1). soliciting filed: From em Act, 205. He manner ruptcy 11 U.S.C.A. § settle, ployment present, prosecute, col carriers of certain this suit in behalf lect, adjust compromise any behalf <\r later of others. intervened on (other claims) plaintiffs freight and inter- claims than rate distinction between Texas against The in which pertinent here. Plaintiff or Intervener veners is not Company they interest, profit, also have no own New Railroad their and Orleans and intervened, procuring action from others solicit such its asserted cause but present employment and it suit for them. was severed appeal. The Southern party is not a “(2) examining or rec- From the files belovv, part is a Bureau, Traffic defendant firm, any person, ords of or association White, M. M. W. nership composed of W. corporation of ascertain- purpose White, Jr., members of and other ing determining or whether such rec- or files busi in the family, engaged White and is (other freight disclose a claim than ords presenting claims preparing and- ness of claims) against rate Plaintiff or Intervener delays arising rail carriers out against cognizable law. is at containers, transit, failure breakage in “(3) any firm, From advising person, and sim carry instructions shipping corporation association or shipment they relating to ilar matters (other a claim than appellee freight claims) rate vegetables. The fruit and against Plaintiff operations are or Intervener bureau’s or such' tended claim which barratry, Ar the Courts will enforce. against law' violative Code, and Ann.Penal ticle Vernon’s “(4) any From filing (other claim than practice unlawfully engages in freight claims) against rate Plaintiff or of law. Intervener, any on behalf person, other without a was court Trial below firm, corporation, association or either in and Upon request findings of fact jury. Court or Plaintiff or Intervener or prepared and filed. of law were conclusions servant, any employee agent, rep- or other the main was favorable in judgment The resentative of Plaintiff or Intervener. injunction was appellee. perpetual A “(5) From representing any per- other solicit- restraining the bureau from granted, ,firm, son, corporation association or doing and from ing against prosecution (other claim freight of a than num- out in seven specified set acts other claims) against plaintiff rate or Intervener The court paragraphs of the decree. bered any representing and from person, other way relief granted further also firm, corporation any association or ef- declaratory Article judgment. 2524— attempt fort or any (other to collect claim portion of This Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. claims) than rate from Plaintiff paragraphs Of eleven judgment consists Intervener, attempting settle, or ad- or ’ k, inclusive. a to lettered compromise just any such claim. points Appellant submits of error and “(6) advising any firm, From person, appellee presents cross-points. two corporation asserting association or a claim obviously impossible all to discuss against Plaintiff or Intervener as to wheth- keep points seriatim and these settled, adjusted er the same should be believe, bounds. reasonable within compromised advising and such claim- however, nat- the issues of the case ant whether a suit should filed in Court grand certain urally divide themselves into rejected by claim it be on such if Plaintiff expeditiously dis- divisions compromised, adjust- or Intervener or not disposed of. cussed- or settled them. ed portion pro- decree The any From that, “(7) threatening, Bureau Traffic behalf “Southern vided firm, Sr., White, -persons, corpo- White, Jr., M. Ce- other association or W. M.W. ration, White, White, to file suit Plaintiff or In- White and cil Bernice Jack be,' tervener, any employees event agents, filed servants their firm, enjoined: person, hereby perpetually or on behalf associa- they are adjusted Independent S.W. corporation paid, Featherstone tion or Texas, Service Station Ass’n of compromised.” settled or Tex.Civ. App., 10 holding S.W.2d 124. The numbered obvious basis of the first McCloskey approved by the Su case injunctive portion of the paragraph preme Court, outright -as its evidenced statute, barratry Art. P. decree -refusal of a writ error. C., provides which in that: “Whoever shall, profit The trial ap for his or with the intent court own found that effect therein, pellant past to distress harass the defendant had in the would in maintain, excite, future, wilfully prose- restrained, instigate, unless solicit claims encourage appellee. bringing, findings fully cute These State, support equity paragraph court of of suit law or this at first of the restrain * * * interest; ing portion quoted. which he no or has decree above n Appellant instigate, excite, willfully maintain, these shall however asserts that find prosecute ings supported encourage bringing by not or or are the evidence. any prosecution was claim in which has .There direct evidence of the solicita interest, profit his own or tion of for with the business. Letters written person intent to or Traffic distress' harass Bureau were Southern .letterhead against brought persons whom such claim is in evidence introduced business, prosecuted; employ- or shall seek to obtain were advised that the firm was in any prosecute, good claims,” “big ment in to defend had a settling for re.cord (cid:127) by personal “pay collect the same and would means make railroad .carrier employment,, by pro- way solicitation of such one was shown that another.” curing employ- appellant: placed had another to solicit him for advertisements * * * claim; .magazines in such seeking ment shall be business in trade dollars, publications. fined to exceed five hundred not imprisoned in addition thereto be Under the Texas authorities it can jail exceeding not three months. The seriously urged not be that no violation

penalties prescribed apply herein shall not barratry place.- law had taken At only law, attorneys any to at but to other applicable one time barratry law was person guilty any who pf. only attorneys to at law. This defect was ' ” * ** things set forth this article. pointed by McCloskey this Court in Co., v. San Antonio 192 S.W. Traction McCloskey In the case of v. San 1116, Legislature. and remedied Co., Antonio Tex.Civ.App., Public Service McCloskey v. San Public Antonio Service 1088, 51 S.W.2d Court held that when Company, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 1088. property rights an individual or Co., In Pelton McClaren Rubber Tex. corporation were threatened the solicita 517, Civ.App., 516, ref., 120 wr. S.W.2d prosecution tion and Of claims Chief, (later Mr. Alexander barratry law, in contravention of the Justice an Justice Supreme Court) the following .made .the injunction would lie to restrain such ac unequivocal regard clear statement tion. while, It was held that as a general barratry “By plain pro to statute: rule, injunction an does not lie to restrain (Art. P.C.) visions of the above 430 statute penal the violation statute, there is made, e illegal .anyone, it is be he either recognized a well exception for to th rule. seek-by lawyer'or personal to layman, so Whenever the commission of acts denounc employment licitation to obtain to collect ed wrongful penal code results Tobin, McCloskey v. 252 claim. U.S. property rights invasion 64 40 S.Ct. L.Ed. 481.” another, injured person may protect by injunction. also, appellee, injury himself are parte See As we Ex also of Hughes, 133 270; Tex. 129 the evidence S.W.2d that was- sufficient parte Allison, Ex 48 for the raise an issue trial 90 court’s S. de- Tex.Cr.R. testimony W. L.R.A.N.S., Ann.Cas . There was t.o termination. Saenz, Tex.Civ.App., presented Ramon v. that had claims effect sought 'the injunction basis fact that no no factual had the''carriers against appellant excessive as this insofar liability (cid:127)for and others n 'species Appellee, of claim concerned. 'amounts. support cross- in his brief filed in of his Larry Thompson v. case of the recent points, says complaining not he is 831, decided Inc., 230 Lightner, S.W.2d freight excluding the trial court’s action in held May Court restraining rate claims the decree’s a number Thompson as trustee explanation provisions. so We make this injunc not entitled rail carriers was implied holding that a will from our not as the trial agency tion claims approval paragraph discussed chal finding was (and the court found per- solicitation of rate claims is property rights appeal) lenged on barratry by the Such claims mitted statute. in had not been Thompson as trustee are involved in this suit. any pecuniary suffered had he vaded nor properly injunc- order to discuss the acts of the injury because loss or para- tive orders contained argues in numbered Appellant in effect agency. 7, inclusive, out, graphs 2 above set shown, no it is though solicitation be 'that even necessary some the property to consider in detail appellee’s rights is 'invasio of appears operating doing method business as of disclosed, it further unless adopted by appellant participated the and solicitation of such a result in to extent some the carrier was secured and carriers. claim in law claim had sound basis that said appears It M. White W. has been an excessive amount. in fact "or presenting adjusting in the of and business proof particularity of opinion this In our rail carriers out of arising claims required. Appellant’s unlawful was not period fruit vegetable shipments and designed secure claims. were to solicitations twenty years. of over began op He first n We safely the may infer that intended re Poteet, Texas, organized erations and accomplished. the -Under evidence sult was family the Bureau as Southern" Traffic authorized find that court was the trial years ago affair. A few the moved adversely rights were appellee’s property principal the Harlingen, office of bureau to part on the by illegal actions of affected Texas, located near the center of appellant. vegetable the fruit and growing of areas Valley. the Lower Rio Grande M.W. paragraph the first our son, M., Jr., White and his W. are the ac the1 decree should be sustained. tive negotiators of settlements and no one in full accord with the trial We are not is, connected the bureau a licensed operations w.ith analysis of the bureau’s (cid:127)court’s addition, attorney at law. to claims will be and this difference discussed originating shipments from from Low the opinion. may say latter of this er Valley, Rio Grande also .bureau para that the here that it to us first seems arising shipments handles claims from from injunctive portion- of graph de Garden, the Laredo Winter Coastal Bend restraining cree the- of'- relates acts Texas vegetable and East fruit and- grow barratry wrongful as denounced ing districts. Closely connected- with -the so statute. claims acts licitation are such as insti serving The bureau is now fifty some against ap- gating to file lawsuits others shippers regularly, compensation and as pellee threatening instigation and twenty-five per generally receives cent of Such actions are such suits. barratrous recovery against-the carrier. the paragraph and of the in nature decree step The in the established first course of will be discussion modified so now under operations ship- examination of the restraining'such an order ac include per’s reau, a representative files of the bu- ' nn tions. of these files are Certain selected exception presence relating shipper'and The of the sent to the ex- bureau for amination; paragraph representative freight claims in the of the or a of the bu- rate place quoted evidently arises reau calls at decree above business -pur- lawyers, .respective shipper goes go !thé meet-and' over their and files.for over. files-together.' nn pose prob- ascertaining not a whether or able claim exists. appears Railway American that the Association, uniformity in'order to-obtain separate and Each' file' to a relates car practice in the' settlement of’ usually lading, .'contains of' the bill by carriers, adopted an claims had elabo- into manifest' loaded showing what was rate The-guidance set of rail- rules-for car, "inspection certificates, diversion (cid:127) way' freight-'claim 'agents. These rules orders, 'protests, shipping instructions and “Principles are known and Practices any, if account sales the con Investigation Disposition for the and car, papers tents of and such other Freight Claims.” Said rules are based shipment. documents relate partly upon applicable law relating to vegetable shipments Claims- fruit and partly upon e., expediency. generally categories, fall into three i. They designed expeditious are transit; for the delays those arising those represen- uniform handling of claims. carry The arising shipping from failure to tatives bureau are tho- instructions, comply such as failure to roughly “Principles familiar with these refrigeration ventilating orders Practices” and claims like, are rough “conferenced” arising and the and those from' in accordance handling shipment, therewith. such as break containers, age-of bruising of the contents conference, As a result of the the freight “protest” damage. similar agent agree-to carrier paper document delivered the carrier p.ay claim, deny liability all or.offer inspection showing by consignee- after the- amopnt, settle the claim a certain The the condition of the contents -of a car so representative of the bureau likewise makes give opportunity 'an carrier settlepient. appears of offers It in inspection make an of .its also contents. .of, may accept some cases he offers settler evidence, From the it is indicated that in ment without further consultation usually addition the information whom, shipper represents. he In others necessary, tained it'is for'an file may he refer of settlement-back the-offer examiner to have a of knowledge detailed shipper. If -the claim" is declined schedules, prices open train and sales by the representative, carrier’s isit return- various, ing hours throughout of markets the, shipper, ed to the sometimes with bu- States, the United in order to ascertain reau’s recommendation that suit be filed claim, probable or not a whether dam thereon. instituted, the event suit is t s age exis representatives of the bureau are often by shipper expert used witnesses. If, upon shipper’s file, examination It is indicated that there are other'organi- probable liability part the carrier appellant, zations similar to engaged in indicated, “claim” is a is with thé filed presenting like claims It carriers. provisions carrier under Section is not legal shown members proi lading. 2b óf the bill "of The nature of fession have undertaken the handling of “claim” will be hereinafter discussed. such claims from the examination of the say here it may It is sufficient to shipper’s files to final conclusion. simple notice a either a detailed docu- may contain sufficient informa- exceptions noted, ment. With th.e numbered 7, inclusive, that the carrier check rec- paragraphs tion-so its 2 to of the injunc- acknowledge liability ords, portion for a certain tive of the decree relate- to the ' check for unlawfully sum and return a that amount. assertion bureau is If, claim not settled in practicing this manner law. The trial court’s view comparatively -by means of "a is, or. small of' the actions the bureau believe, - correspondence,, subjected accurately amount of appellee’s brief, stated process known as “conferencing.” “Everything appellants a follows: did was representative repre- bureau and a A a single but a transaction conceiv carrier, th.e neither appellants sentative of them ed carried out for the -sole .748 that, “under soliciting article wherein it recited purpose employment to ferret Constitution, department judicial alleged claims power de government has prosecute, col the State capacity to

representative law”, 1949, adjust practice Act 51st the fine the lect, compromise, settle 301, p. Leg. leading interest ch. case their own 548. clients in for their same practice of involving contingent Texas the unlawful profit for a own for their is, law Co. v. collected vol Hexter Title & Abstract the amount fee of 25% Committee, 506, 142 Tex. 179 S. compromise adjust untary payment, Grievance 946, Other author W.2d 157 A.L.R. 268. ment or suit.” on, point particularly relating ities agree with this are unable to. Berk State the collection are: v. per Obviously many of the services view. Thompson, 324, 225 142 So. ex Ala. rel. legi within the bureau come formed 832, 740; Taylor, Fitchette v. 84 A.L.R. lay in scope of the activities of a timate 910, 582, 191 N.W. 94 A.L.R. Minn. 254 ascertaining of the facts vestigator. The 356; People Chicago ex Bar Ass’n v. rel. relating to movements 941, Goodman, 346, 366 Ill. N.E.2d 111 8 practice constitute freight car does 1; Jones, Liberty Co. Mutual Ins. v. A.L.R. layman may properly determine A of law. 945, 344 130 125 A.L.R. Mo. S.W.2d vegetable containers were or not whether Smith, 244 1149; Wilkey ex v. State rel. arrival of broken found 765; 568, 14 151 Ala. So.2d A.L.R. destination; the condition of car its at 74; 30, 16 Lyon, 301 N.E.2d re Mass. refrigera vegetables loaded into fruit or 567; La.App., Bernich, Meunier 170 v. So. car, shipping in or whether tor v. Haworth Public Service Traffic Bureau icing as to and ventilation were structions Co., App. 178 Ohio N.E. Marble By complied comparison of the with. 703; Hopkins, Boykin, v. General Solicitor parti the actual movement record of S.E. Clark Ga. schedules, cular with train car Austin, 340 Mo. S.W.2d car in fact a has been properly determine if expeditious moved to destination regard filing We do not the of notice (cid:127) investigate mariner, may properly of provisions claim under the of Section prices paid the at a certain and ascertain Lading 2b Bill Straight of a Uniform. of particular period. market constituting practice the of This law. process handling claims the of When by any notice of claim be filed author- adopted by to a certain ex- the bureau and shipper. ized of the agent Said section carrier, proper- acquiesced in the is tent 2b, here, provides as material insofar that: things ly analyzed it seem that the two precedent recovery, condition to ‘.‘As practice the properly constitute of which writing be claims must filed with the agreements securing the of law are carrier, receiving delivering or or carrier upon the shippers confer bureau the issuing lading, this .bill or on of carrier claims, settle ac- to the a discretiori loss, damage, injury whose the line or de- accepting compromise bureau tion the of occurred, lay months within nine after de- ship- of on behalf settlement the * * offers of * - livery property. of the Where represented it. pers not claims are filed suits are or not insti- tuted thereon accordance the fore- view, our of the it is Under case provisions,, going hereunder carrier go. say -to further than to essential liable, and shall not be be will probably mentioned actions the above paid.” law, practice but it the stitute repeal point out that the quoted portion well of Article The above the Code, 430a, Ann.Penal de bill lading Vernon’s did not is inserted for the benefit department judicial govern purpose the prive give .the carrier. Its is “to the power practice opportunity investigate define ment carrier .of or in expressly quire” fact This is or recognized movements law.' condition shipment provisions of the Act certain' “while repealing said the facts justice, claim are vent do bearing acting of the we on trie himself. While for. , readily C.J.S., go say. po Carriers, available.’ 13 far as so that one § here, sition page appellee the' not secure 463. could - injunction enjoining constituting an acts regards sufficiency notice “As practice distinguish the unlawful of law as claim, of, claim, -of a for loss actions, ed from it should be barratrous to, shipped, stipula injuries property pointed appellee occupies out that given claim is requiring tion such notice or position with reference to different construction, very a reasonable it is question practice of the 'unlawful lawof par generally recognized held that no than does a committee of the Bar State form of claim nec ticular of notice or is Thompson Larry Association. v. Light formality essary, techni that neither nor ner, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., S.W.2d necessary, cal and that sub exactness is stipulation compliance stantial with the pointed Hexter Title required. all that It ‘is to a addressed Committee, & Abstract Co. v. Grievance practical exigency and it is to be construed 142 Tex. 179 S.W.2d 157 A.L.R. practical way.’ (Quoting in a Geor Bar, creating the Act State Compa gia, Alabama Florida and Railroad p. 46, 46th Leg., Acts Art. 320a— ny Milling Co., Blish U.S. S. Ann.Civ.Stats., Vernon’s constituted that 948.) Ct. 60 L.Ed. absence of organization an agency adminstriative requirement stipulation, therefor Department of the State and Judicial particulars all :claim need not set forth prohibited persons not members of merely and it is--.not insufficient because practicing State Bar from law. This Act - money demand there is no formal public policy State, declared the it does damages nor because not set forth by appropriate Supreme rules the Court Carriers, C.J.S., damages claimed.” 13 provided public for the enforcement of this 239, page 480. § policy through Bar, committees of the State necessary attorney It is not that an empowered were act for and on employed at' a claim law to file notice public protection. behalf of the its and for 2b complying hand, with Section bill appellee, right other Lawyers lading. are not like the river property to a rights vindication limited. ages barons of the middle who exacted peculiar Considering to him. re tribute from commerce because of their striction demand for his strategic relief, location trade. of the arteries of are of limiting practice The rule of law to injunction relating was not entitled to qualified persons trained and is founded appellant’s settling method of claims. upon principle public benefit and upon holding We base do not this protection. The rule however does not theory appellee that as the utilized' the' go beyond upon principle which' it is lay adjusters, shippers services beyond based and not be should extended permitted d'o likewise. should be to On this requirements good. of the common Liberty Jones, point, Mutual Ins. Co. v. see 932, 945, point accept 344 Mo. 130 S.W.2d A.L.R. at this 125 undisputed'that premise áppellée’s 1149. But it is that the bureau’s action in secur agents negotiations rep ing agreements entered shippers from into authorizing they appellant; it to that “con- settle and resentatives accept its action in compromise ing ferenced” claims ’in' accordance with the offers the'prác- constitute adopted “Principles known question tice law. carrier rules The then arises as to Practices,” they and that made offers right enjoin and prac to such upon payment out, agreed tices. terms of set pointed As heretofore appellee’s right injunction appel- these tlement conferences. is based. an in property lee, position say vasion of rights. consequently, its is axio matic that one is not injunc entitled should be restrained to an the bureau tion may pre- agents to'restrain made his accepting actions which he offers- 750 tomary' processes open- law agents made or are His ill these conferences. d e available, -they ample- accord and ade paid are

accepte and' off thes offers- requesting quate, unhampered complicated, effect, appellee is ingly. In they adopted generally he could should be rather an action court to take 'application appel- tha for a declaration -of Accordingly, taken himself. injunctive-relief rights. That is to where cause of say, lee is not entitled already justicia- that is action.-has accrued discussed. ble, well-recognized in a and traditional lim conclusion We realize action, declaratory.relief will not form injunctive relief stems appellee’s iting granted as a rule.” be- concept between our the difference Co., Bagwell Iron 236 v. Woodward As trial held case and that court. 693, 668, 692, 184 So. the Court said: Ala. out, consider pointed the trial court above relief, ádequate appropriate “If and an essentially appellant’s ed actions remedy, presently are com available regard the various -stituting unit. We through party the means of other plaining conducting by appellant taken actions proceeding, of action existing forms op In our being .its divisible. business declaratory jurisdiction judgment will should not issue injunction inion an ordinarily If re entertained. legal, or are actions which restrain -those available, parties presently lief is will be ap- concerning which the those actions appropriate provided to their actions left position complain. pellee is in no permit law rather than a resort disposes of all issues has been said What declaratory proceeding. judgment Union relating to the save those of this case v. Main Trust Co. of Rochester & South judgment portion of the de declaratory Holding Corporation, App.Div. 245 Streets Appellant insists cree. 428; 369, Metropolitan 282 N.Y.S. Post v. number judgment is erroneous York, Casualty App. Ins. Co. of New 227 s therefore be set of- reason should 64, affirmed, 156, 237 N. Div. N.Y.S. 254 also asserts that another Appellant aside. 857; v. Powell, 541, 173 N.E. Sheldon Y. declaratory judgment should form of 782, 258; County Fla. 128 99 So. Oldham appellant can “have its (cid:127)rendered so Arvin, Ky. 551, 657; v. 244 51 S.W.2d by a settled declara rights defined and Herten, 210, v. 125 Neb. 249 N.W. Stewart of court.” tion 552; Reynolds Chase, v. N.H. ''cross-appeal' appellee By at- likewise 291; Southard, Di N.J.Eq. A. Fabio v. declaratory part judgment tacks 248; v. Alderton Dock 150 A. James particulars. in certain Yards, 401; 256 N.Y. 176 N.E. Mer man v. St. Greek Catholic Mary's Church seeming desire both Despite Nesquehoning, 317 Pa. 176 A. .declaratory parties for the rendition Sup’rs County of Amherst v. Board come to the conclusion judgment, we have Combs, 160 169 S.E. 589.” Va. proper case for the ren is not that this Superior Court, Cal.App. De Fritz decree under the Uniform dition of a Act, 1, 2d 63 P.2d claratory hearing Article Judgments denied 2524 — Court, Supreme Appellant’s points it was said Ann.Civ.Stats. Vernon’s portion attacking decree must .this “Though existence of an available be sustained. remedy ordinary action at law or in evidence, necessarily equity does not bar the right has According .proceed operating under these sections of the its claims business sub Code been way stantially Tonningsen, Cal.App.2d 8 (Wollenberg the same number of v. 722, 726, 738), nevertheless, 48 years. Any appellee may of action P.2d cause appellant’s character of action must be reason of methods of determined fully pleaded, facts operation accrued. In Anderson an examination of the has .from p. 192, Declaratory prayer title Judgments, than from the or for on it rather § relief, when, upon examination, “If a common-law cause of said.that-: matured, already appears that cause of action and the has action has cus-

751 question already only and the for cree with paragraph accrued 1 pro- thereof so as to that,: fo,r liability or determination is the relief vide. Southern Traffic Bureau and respective parties White, which the are W: M. Sr., White, .to Jr., W. M.. Cecil charged, White, the action not a ‘the nature of White, Bernice White and Jack declaratory relief, agents, cause for but is defined their be, employees servants and subject-matter they of the accrued cause and hereby are perpetually enjoined of action.’ Standard Brands California any .from in manner soliciting employment Bryce, present, v. Cal.2d settle, P.2d prosecute^ collect, adjust compromise 447. (other claim claims than claims) rate against Plaintiff “Applying principle the case at or Intervener (appellee) .they in which hand, find cause of action accrued be- interest, have no for profit, their own fore this suit was filed—a cause to deter- procuring others to such em- solicit validity corpo- mine the of an election of ployment parties for them. Said are also rate officers—and this is a cause for enjoined . instigating advising adequate remedy and available is ex- others to file lawsuits Plaintiff pressly Hence, provided by though law. . (appellee), Intervener and from threatening relief, prayer declaratory asks for to do so. pleaded affirmatively show facts declaratory relief it is not a case but injunctive remainder-of the portion directly coming under section 315 of one vacated, portion the decree is as is the the Civil Code.” (paragraphs decree lettered k, inclusive,) purporting to declare Declaratory The Uniform Judg in, parties (cid:127)rights of the accordance .with provide giving ments Act does provisions of the Uniform Declaratory the. merely advisory opinions on Judgments Act. Article Vernon’s duty government of courts. this is a 2524 — Civ.Stats. Ann. private branch. executive busi legal profes ness it is the function The decree as so reformed will be affirm- City County Lynch, v. sion. Denver appeal ed. Costs of are adjudged one-half 102, 18 Colo. P.2d A.L.R. 907. against appellant and 'against ap- one-half pellee., is' further a well established declaratory judgment that a rule should Reformed and affirmed. par

not be based facts are On for Rehearing. Motion subject ticularly change to mutation and as are the facts here. Anderson De By assignment of error numbered “LVI” claratory p. Judgments, § effect, contends, in that the second sentence decree as modi- has While case been well' ánd fied this Court should.be amended so thoroughly by both briefed sides in this as to read as follows: parties “Said are Court, record the trial court enjoined also from instigating and advis- below indicates careful consideration of ing file others to and lawsuits involved, agen issues the fact that an Plaintiff or Intervener (appellee), and from cy of the State Bar party was not a below threatening to so.” do properly is a matter which determining sidered in whether or not a We are of the that the instigá declaratory judgment prac relating filing tion of the of claims"is violative of tice law should rendered. Article barratry statute. McCloskey v. San Thompson Larry Lightner, § Co., 2524 — Antonio Public Service Tex.Civ.App., c., Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W.2d 831. In Particularly 51 S.W.2d 1088. is this true stated, For the reasons above the judg- party when the one uses threat filing of the ment of the district will court be against reformed of numerous claims party another parts so as to combine of paragraphs attempt 6 in an a force settlement of a portion specific 7 of the and de- certain claim at issue. The. in the'claimant, prorated.- If is however, then amount should, limited not be

junction defect, protective that then provi is service example given. The there particular the prorated upon the depending Ann.Pen. is seriousness Vernon’s' Article sions of loss, pro it, expressly from the total and and that deducted much broader Code are prorated delay. encouragement and then the total loss instigation or as scribe any course, figured average claiin prosecution of that Of is “the bringing -car, Ap good interest”. in the party) packages no with the (a in which has order' by salvage is sustain point every numbered “LVI” in pellee’s dollar received ac modified receiver, salvage will be judgment our the amount of ed and received charges, payment handling and that cordingly. less the general per Some- as rule is cent. assignments, by number of Appellee, accepted my times is and sometimes holding he is not in of our that complains offer is not." appellant position that bureau to demand compromising appellee’s testimony be restrained We believe him. have been asserted which adjuster fully supports our freight claim our objection is made to state- Particular forth in of- the record set' statement effect, that, “In original opinion ment in the analysis opinion. Upon be original it will equity] appellee requesting a court is [of part appellee’s for the found that most he have tak- which could to take an- action complaints, the one now under including , en'himself.” discussion, separate to the are not directed processes operating details of Maloan, Traveling Freight Claim R. R. bureau, being operated rather to its at but Lines, Pacific Adjuster the Missouri appellee differ with in we all. We that working had for said that he' been testified injunction hold that should be restricted investigator and 1926 as an since railroads illegal items the bureau’s details claims; the “Prin- adjuster that operation, and to those about method by ciples put out and Practices” were position which is a- to' com- Division of the Association Claims opinion, appellee plain. In our has cited Railways effort.to in an secure American justify which authority would the exten- payment policy all claim a universal injunction beyond scope sion of lines; pay- any not make rail does prescribed original opin- this Court in its arising with claim- from conferences ment ion modified herein- representatives unless the ants or their out. above conformity “Principles with claim is .set Practices,” regardless of and that what The trial refused to court hold governed by is said the law be he members bureau could “Principles Practices.” against appellee. testify in filed not lawsuits complained ruling Appellant way which a-“conference” As to point. Our . failure sustain said conducted, cross Maloan testified as follows: upon assigned rehearing. error (the bureau’s) point office “Well, goI with * * * of.claims, argues usually Appellee I the members of the number up percentage any receive a certain lined numerical order insofar as bureau them recovery numbers are concerned. give I obtained reason of their con our representative) plaintiff they shippers, the record with the (the bureau’s should tract movement,, together disqualified testifying, point the schedule This be type applicable on the depending overruled for reason special service,.protective service under the absence of which circumstances dis moving, giving present record, shipment him that record. closed a court will decline, delay figure attempt we market If determine the admissibility there is difference, any, if if there is then of evidence offered the loss based on the market subsequently may determine trial a.lawsuit Anderson, on date due as what was Declaratory Judgments, value filed. p. realized, delay and if there is located with § rehearing- grant- is' for motion' Appellee’s other In all indicated. part, as above ed in overruled.

particulars it rehearing has also for motion

Appellant’s is overruled. considered

been DALLAS. OF CITY al. v. et

ANDREWS

No. Dallas. Appeals Texas. Civil

Court 23, 1950.

June 29, 1950. Sept.

Rehearing Denied Zumwalt, Dallas, appellants. Lee

J. Kucera, Atty., City P. Louis H.. and.H. City Jon, Shurette, H. Asst. Nichóls appellee. Attys., all of Dallas, YOUNG, Justice. memorandum order of.date A former above

April affirming cause this withdrawn; aside lieu day set opinion of reversal and re thereof trial is filed. new mand proceeding, ap- This instituted condemn of land out of pellee 1.8 -acres appellants. acres owned by tract 4½ unsatisfactory award Because court, appellants duly pro- trial appeal. secuted points 'are based on Appellants’ -various exception statement bills of without 1, omitting parts, formal Bill No. facts. remembered, “Be it reads: cause, defendants were trial of this

Case Details

Case Name: Southern Traffic Bureau v. Thompson

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jun 21, 1950

Citation: 232 S.W.2d 742

Docket Number: 12109

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.