DocketNumber： Application No. 16391.
Citation Numbers： 13 S.W.2d 667, 118 Tex. 224
Judges： PER CURIAM:
Filed Date： 2/6/1929
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 4/15/2017
We think the temporary injunction was rightly refused for the reasons given in paragraph two of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals as published in 9 S.W.2d , pages 436 and 437, although we are inclined not to agree with the construction given to Article 7584 by that Court as applied to the water wheel.
Cheney v. Overmyer , 64 Idaho 213 ( 1942 )
Mercer Co. v. Port , 176 Okla. 589 ( 1936 )
Natl. Bond M. Corp. v. Mahaney , 124 Tex. 544 ( 1935 )
Bothwell v. F. M. State B. T. Co. , 125 Tex. 488 ( 1935 )
Riverdrive Mall, Inc. v. Larwin Mortgage Investors , 515 S.W.2d 5 ( 1974 )
Fort v. Moore , 33 S.W.2d 807 ( 1930 )
Poff v. Rollinsford Sav. Bank , 105 S.W.2d 782 ( 1937 )
Standard Finance Corp. v. Havins , 69 S.W.2d 437 ( 1934 )
Citizens Indus. Bank v. Schmidt , 112 S.W.2d 513 ( 1937 )
Volunteer State Life v. Sumner , 74 S.W.2d 319 ( 1934 )
Schmidt v. Citizens Indus. Bank of Austin , 89 S.W.2d 847 ( 1935 )