*1 are not to under- our action we By separate special
stood as sub-
issue on insane delusions should be an issue
mitted in cases such as this when testamentary capacity submitted “testamen- court’s definition the term an in-
tary incapacity” properly includes delusions.
struction on the law insane Petitioner,
The STATE of UNITED, Respondents. al., INC. et
COOK
No. B-2242.
Supreme
Jan. Coffey, Atty., Don E. Bur- Dist.
Frank Worth, for dette, Atty., Fort Asst. Dist. petitioner. Mitchell, B.
Berman, Harold Fichtner & Fichtner, Dallas, Pra- Jay Berman and S. Brown, Prager, Fort ger Donald & E. Worth, respondents.
REAVLEY, Justice. of Texas petition On Coffey, Frank Honorable through the *2 applicant Attorney believing Tarrant its for District reasons that relief, day probable a to final hearing, right after a two has shown give a but it is trial court entered Sundaco, interlocutory Inc. and will be if the against Cook suffered Transport de- with twelve individual Co. of together relief is ordered. Arti- fendants, Transports, Texas 152 Tex. enjoining their violation v. Robertson 286a, 551, (1953). Ann. Texas Penal Code. cle Vernon's prohibits the sale certain This statute ap- The court civil days of goods on the two consecutive both peals misinterpreted opinion have Sunday. City Irving this court in v. Dallas Dist., County Flood appealed The from tem- Control 383 S.W.2d defendants (Tex.1964), as a sound porary grounds, two injunction on contend- overruling tempo- granting in reason exists ing the trial court erred rary in pleas failing injunction granting and in to state a court such abatement required injunction complying its with reason for the order excused from requirement that the rea- 683. The court of Rule 683 Tex.R.Civ.P. civil peals be set forth points sustained reversed the sons for issuance shall both speaking court was there order. The court. finding that of those “reasons for 332. prevail in trial on applicant probably will predicate plea in The for the abate Nothing the merits.” 383 S.W.2d It pendency prior ment of a was suit. holding in Trans- change was said to attorney filed appears that the had district port Co. of Texas v. Robertson district court cause No. in another 54616-C supra, state the reasons that the order must County against most of the Tarrant to prevent for interim restraint 1968, same defendants on November in- alleging of Article 286a cer violations junction at of the hearing hand recites the September, tain dates and No October application by present vember 1968. The was suit injunction hearing filed on alleging December viola the named defendants “from jointly, tions Article De 286a November and cember of overruling 1969. The order merchandise es- businesses and merchantile plea in interlocutory abatement was or County” certain tablishments Tarrant at der appeal provided. from It locations “in violation of and may be appeal attacked in the from provisions 286a of the Penal Article temporary injunction only in far as the reciting Code.” After he has heard questions raised validity affect the evidence and injunction order. Texas State Board of argument, the that he “is of judge states Optometry Carp, Examiners 162 Tex. and finds that the- Plaintiff is 1, 343 242 (1961). as re- quested.” A He then that the defend- must be orders supported by showing probable right ants “be and probable restrained and final hear- enjoined pending relief and right singly, collectively, jointly, herein from during without the pendency As or from alternately Oil Field Haulers in concert suit. Commission, merchan- sociation Railroad located locations (Tex.1964). Rule 683 dise and merchantile business Under contrary to the the reason for of a specifically Texas injunction must stated in the order. It Penal Code and or selling offering obliging is not required explain sale that the trial 1Q7 offer employees to sell or Rule 683 that permitting days issuing of Satur- reasons for be stated the consecutive for sale on goods Sunday” hardly enumerated the order could be couched certain doing stronger language. mandatory. “and specific locations at the alternately consecu- order in instant no reasons such locations case states so at Sundays.” *3 Saturdays judgment and its issuance. I the tive concur only willing here rendered I am to because 286a declares Art. 4 of Section recognize exception re- an to the Rule’s nui public be a of that Act to violation quirement injunctive or- involving cases sance, re it an and authorizes granted ders to re- behalf of this By reason straining the violation. operation statutorily strain the declared of Art. statutory provision, a violation public That, my is judgment, nuisances. suit for pendency of the during the 286a the effect of majority’s opinion. to injunction becomes McGEE, (dissenting). Justice may enjoined. public be interlocutory or reason for sufficient I respectfully dissent. statute party violating is this der that a majority opinion states: “The find- it in the interim and violate will otherwise finding of the violation is itself a disposition of the case. injury and reason the order to cease.” to the terms of court’s order Looking finding The trial court’s decree made here, only complaint any is recited the vio- violation and stated no reason for only lation of relief Article 286a and the injunction. sought granted prohibition Rule Texas Rules of Proce- Civil violation. The court finds the State dure, provides: is entitled to this this relief. We construe “Every order statement, in the context of the remainder every and restraining order shall set order, finding to the de- be issuance; shall forth fendants are of Arti- violation specific terms; be shall describe cle 286a. reasonable detail and not by to reference statute, Without 4 of the it the complaint document, Section or other the act would be state the court to or acts sought restrained; to be and is appli- in the order it decided that the binding upon to the ac- tion, cant harm, endangered would officers, suffer or be agents, servant em- by probable injury, granted pre- ployees, not attorneys, and upon those liminary injunction. However, persons statute this in active concert participation itself declares the The order need with them who receive actual notice of not making restate the words personal statute order service or other- Sunday public these (Emphasis sales wise.” mine). finding
nuisance. The of the violation precise requiring 683 is clear and finding itself a and reason for “the reasons for its issuance.” The in- the order to cease. junction order of the trial court in this case any fails to state reason for the issu- judgment the court of civil ance of injunction. peals dissolving portions material of the order of the trial reversed, and remanding cause court read as follows: entered reinstated. “ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION CALVERT, Chief (concurring). Justice December, 1969, “The 18th I judgment concur rendered. came heard the First Amended Plain- the State
Application of * * * many writ), others. tiff, restraining [defendants excep- grant If desires to this Court jointly, named] Civ.P., tion to Rule Tex.Rules mer- effect that the for issuance of estab- mercantile businesses and chandise stated, it not be injunction need Texas, lo- in Tarrant lishments accomplished change, aby should be rule given] cated at violation [locations an order by reading something not into itself. appear does 286a of Code the Penal Texas; of the Defend- I and all would affirm exception ants with the and remand the of Cook Civil through appeared by cause the trial court. *4 ready for trial counsel and announced joint Plea
subject to in Bar and/or WALKER, J., joins in this dissent. Abatement, having Plea and such been overruled the Court and denied; proceeded hear Court evidence consider counsel, argument of done finds that temporary in-
Plaintiff
junction requested. ordered, adjudged “It therefore BLACKSHIRE, Appellant, Johnnie B. decreed [defendants named] v. restrained Texas, Appellee. STATE hearing here- enjoined pending final collectively, jointly, alter- No. 43491. nately or and located merchandise locations con- and mercantile business March trary to the ” Texas Penal Code. 683 Inc. mandatory. Robertson Transport Company
v. 256 S.W. [Tex.Civ.App.1953,
2d 134 reversed oth 549 grounds
er 261 Tex. S.W.2d Kirkwood,
(1953)]; Brownlee v. (Tex.Civ.App.1965, writ); no Shober,
City of Houston
(Tex.Civ.App.1962, e.); writ ref n. r. Rose,
City of Houston v.
(Tex.Civ.App.1962, no writ); Northcutt v.
Waren, 326 (Tex.Civ.App.1959, S.W.2d 10 ref’d, e.);
writ n. r. Miller v. (Tex.Civ.App.1957, writ); Rodriquez, 250
Gonzalez v. writ); Hodges