*1 315 repealed. enforcing attempting valid statutes and have not been to enforce Articles pro- expressly al., supra, 286 et Section Sa Article 286a which has effect of suspending operation it was not intention of vides that statute such 287 repeal Legislature to Articles 286 and is void. See: Section 28 of 1 Article of the However, Judge adoption Constitution, Texas 286a. Vernon’s Ann.St. been claim that 286 has Craik does Article The writ prohibition mandamus and is adop- Legislature amended granted, actually only will issue in the relator, 286a, Article and that the event of the respondent, failure Crouch, guise as a using is the latter statute Craik, to take action in accordance with perpetrate author- gross of the abuse opinion. ity Judge argues Craik his office. Store, in his Department the Clark’s Worth law, abiding by as declared
opinion, is 286a, Crouch in Article and that the acts of filing complaints for violations provisions arbitrary and of Article 286 were followed unlawful and the arrests which WALL, Petitioner, John Charles unreasonable.
were
v. Ordinarily equity, a court of TRINITY SAND AND GRAVEL case, acting as the court in this is COMPANY, Respondent. cerned with the enforcement of criminal No. A-9415. therefore, Judge was, Craik com
laws. Supreme Court of Texas. pletely authority suggest without even relator, that the in the of his du 5, June ties, proceed under 4 of Ar Section Rehearing July 10, Denied 286a, proceed ticle or should in accordance interpretation with his Penal Code. of the
Assuming all allegations of the of Clark’s true, we
Worth to be still have no basis holding equity that a court has power by injunction stay prosecution proceedings. power criminal
authority interpret 286, Articles 286a and solely rests with the courts of state
287 exercising jurisdiction. criminal It is a criminal statute where is void vested rights impinged property are attempt to enforce such void result jurisdiction that the of the courts statutes equity can be invoked. That situation Therefore, not exist this case. does jurisdiction equitable does not See: exist. Sterling, 108, 122 parte Tex. Ex 53 S.W.2d 294; parte al., 104, Ex Phares 122 et Tex. 297; Ferguson, supra, State v. S.W.2d
53
Injunctions (3rd
68;
High
ed.)
on
1
Pack
Banton,
U.S.
ard
S.Ct.
stated,
258,
Beck & Cordova, Beaumont, Crutchfield & De respondent.
CULVER, Justice.
Charles Wall
Trinity
sued
Sand'
John
Company
and Gravel
to recover the balance
claimed to be due him
of the-
result
option by Trinity
exercise of an
to extend'
noncompetitive agreement-
term of a
parties.
Judgmerit
entered into between the
was rendered
the trial court in Wall’s
for,
prayed
favor for the amount
on the-
premise
had chosen
extend
agreement for
term of four
and'
obligated
became
Wall
the full con-
$5,000.00per year..
sideration at the rate of
portion
judgment-
That
of the trial court’s
has been reversed and
the-
rendered
Appeals.
Court of Civil
hereby option exercise the to extend that Contracts, Professor in Williston his agreement 15, for four years from October Edition, 1, 76, p. Third 251, Vol. states § 1960.” as rule follows: “ * ** was Mr. understanding, Wall’s pre- Even though It the offer letter, stated in his that the was scribes as a merely condition and not a silent as the time or which manner in particular suggestion mode of ac- Trinity option. could exercise the He re ceptance, a different adopted by mode quested notify that him letter by acceptor will become effectual if the of its decision. The letter constituted offeror thereafter manifests his assent modify offer to the terms the contract party other to the but it seems regard of exercising the manner otherwise.” option part offer Wall’s on was accepted by Trinity’s says reply. We believe there was no intent by modify exchange obligation part terms of the on parties both by became fixed its letter and the neces November sity exercising pay reason that this letter for the ing the abrogated cash consideration to Wall’s October reply 31st notify requested mutual consent. which him as exercising consideration the balance of respect to
to its with intention $5,000.00 per install- year in annual construes three option. Apparently hand, Wall, insisted it ments. on other notification its letter as pay- at that the full consideration was due merely to exercise intended period of time able in advance for whatever consideration paying later date some ac- might He be extended. gather subsequently. bound to We are cepted they tendered parties what intention of the from applied part payment. it as actually letter ex- have written. Wall’s *4 action upon Trinity take pressly calls to agree We with the reached conclusion give to period within a weeks and of two the trial exer- court that when writing. In him “official notification” in option cised the to extend the reply to that notification gave letter four-year for a term ob- it then became pres- intention, any not of future but of a ligated to pay Wall the full consideration option. ent and final of exercise the for Implicit the the entire term. in ment, expressed, if not so intention was letter the that its contends Trinity further parties of the that term for whatever part to on its offer 25th was January Trinity might choose, period the whole considera- option for a extension the exercise tion pay- for that accept term would be due and this did not year; that Wall of one in able one sum in to and not installments. a counteroffer made offer, but in fact obligation The to by Trinity and assumed was of three an extension Trinity of pay $5,000.00 per year “at the rate of $19,791.66and sum of the months for eleven additional con- accepted term". Under this not was counteroffer for the since any tract the term could be extended for con- This contract. no was Trinity there period of time not to years, ten exceed Trinity’s letter correct if might be tention option the was not a Trin- continuing one. in re- written been 25th had January ity was not option entitled to the exercise October 31st. sponse to Wall’s year. by the option its the already exercised it had Trinity cites the 15th. of November letter No contention has in been here or made Tex. Benson, Dreyfuss & Son v. case Appeals the Court of Civil that con- the analogous being as Civ.App., 239 S.W. option sideration for the exercise of the em- the In that case here. situation to the paid Trinity’s was to not be in advance. employer the to his granted ployee had was, position the Court Civil company his stock in the option purchase to the that if court determined that the employer The wrote value. book at its option had exercised the for term four option he exercised that had employee years, the payable consideration would be held its terms. court according to The equal $5,000.- in four annual installments of be stock would of the transfer the conformity 00 each. In to that understand- there- payment had been made until affected paid ing first the in advance. employee right had the for, the satisfy himself parting with title to before Trinity bases this contention on stock an examina- value of the the as to phrase the contained interpretation of company’s The court books. the tion of namely, “by paying agreement, option the employer exer- had not say that the did not $5,000.00per rate of at the undersigned the not bound to the was cised disagree with that contention. We year”. application the We do not see stock. the the furnished basis phrase This facts here. to the case whole amount of determining the paid, depending to be that can construction sideration only reasonable The for which the the term length 25th Trinity’s letter of to given to the is tantamount use It exercised. reaffirmed is that it per acre” rate “at of $100.00 words period of four for a
31» issue, tract in ascertaining price majority passed of a the total has over case, regard of land. to an I It is similar em- which main one in likewise per ployee’s completely much has found contract in salary which is set at new so “per correspondence “per annum. The this suit. leading words annum” or my year” employment opinion In period meeting refer there no salary, not minds parties and the contract. amount of the annual new any Graham, payment. agreement, There time of no binding Scott new Tex. S.W.2d 324. not be held liable thereon. We hold that therefore
Sand Company and Gravel valid made a
and binding him contract with toWall the sum of for his compete approximate for a ly years. four *5 We therefore reverse judgment Appeals of the Court Civil Petitioner, MOTSENBOCKER, Donald M. in so far as judgment modified the the trial court judgment and affirm James W. WYATT, Respondent. the trial court.
No. A-9288.
GREENHILL, (dissenting). Supreme Court of Texas. Justice June 1963. The offer example Wall was a classic bilateral, unilateral, of a opposed to a July Rehearing Denied form of Wall’s contract. offer was to be accepted action, and not ac- promise
tion. offer His was that if would pay him $5,000, compete would year.
one He did not promise ask for a payment, and a promise mere could
not constitute an acceptance that offer. manner, gave
In like that if each 10 [an offer] years Trinity required, would do the act e., $5,000,
i. he would refrain from com- peting period for such Again, time. unilateral offer called for the doing of
act, promise anot to do an act. $5,000. paid Wall On the
Trinity had act, there was a uni- binding basis year. for one lateral accept or offer for could by any promise time longer pay. The Court of Civil held, opin- and I agree so with the that court. S.W.2d ion of 1. The uneven amount is accounted for terminated until October was not 31st. fact chose to extend four So the extension less beginning days. for four 15, I960, employment October as Wall’s