Rogers v. Tennant
ROGERS v. TENNANT
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
By the Court:
The injunction granted by the County Judge in the first instance upon the complaint was dissolved by the District Court upon the coming in of the answers of the defendants, which denied in detail the allegations of the complaint. *186From the order dissolving the injunction the plaintiffs appeal. The dissolution or continuance of the injunction in the face of the answers filed was largely a matter of discretion in the Court below at the hearing, and upon looldng into the pleadings we cannot, under the recognized rule applicable to such cases, disturb the order. We are urged to consider the result of the litigation lately had here in. the case of Castro v. Tennant, as furnishing a reason why the order dissolving the injunction in this case should be reversed now. But the only question which we can determine is as to whether, upon the record before it, the Court below committed an error which ought to be corrected here under the rules governing proceedings upon appeal, and we are not at liberty to interpolate into the record any matter which did not form an element in the case, as it was presented below.
Order affirmed.
Cited by
- People v. Garrow Crim. 1004 · 1955-01-03
- Estate of Tubbs Civ. 15995 · 1947-11-06
- Wood v. Bufford Civ. No. 4397. · 1923-02-27
- Schwartz v. Arata Civ. No. 2070. · 1920-01-28
- Porters Bar Dredging Co. v. Beaudry Civ. No. 790. · 1911-04-03
- People v. Johnson Crim. No. 123. · 1908-10-27
- Humphry v. Buena Vista Water Co. Civ. No. 122. · 1905-12-29
- Grannis v. Lorden No. 19378 · 1894-08-01
- Parrott v. Floyd No. 6,043 · 1880-07-01
- Efford v. S. Pac. Coast R.R. No. 5218 · 1877-07-01