OCR Text |
Show REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT 235 Temporary Injunction In water rights litigation in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas before the main regionwide suit was brought by the State of Texas,21s important questions that were involved related to temporary injunctions, parties, and apportionment of water.216 Insofar as the present topic is concerned, the court stated:217 The purpose of a temporary injunction is not the final adjudication of rights, but, in the exercise of a sound discretion, is the maintenance of the status quo. ? * * * A state of action, as well as a state of rest, may constitute the status quo. Had the court denied the relief appellees sought, they would have sustained irreparable injury, in which circumstances courts of equity may issue even mandatory writs before the case is heard on its merits. * * * * As above pointed out, the purpose of the status quo injunction is not to fix and settle the legal rights of the parties, but to maintain an existing situation, position or condition of affairs until a judicial tribunal may with orderliness proceed to a determination of such rights with some semblance of accuracy. In a subsequent case arising in the same region, rules of law were stated to the effect that the applicant for a temporary writ need not establish the right and the impairment with absolute certainty, but must make proof of probable right and danger, and that in appeals from interlocutory orders thereon the sole question is whether the trial court abused its discretion.218 A much earlier Texas decision stated "a well-settled rule of equity that, if it appears to the judge that more damage is likely to occur by granting a temporary injunction than by refusing it, such injunction should not be granted.219 On the other hand, if greater injury will occur by refusing than by granting the writ, any doubt as to the right of the applicant should be solved in his favor."220 215 State v. Hidalgo County W. C. & I. Dist. No. 18, No. B-20576, 93rd Dist. Court, Hidalgo County, Texas. 216Hidalgo County W. I. Dist. No. 2 v. Cameron County W. C. & I. Dist. No. 5, 250 S.W. (2d) 941 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952), 253 S.W. (2d) 294 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952, error refused n.r.e.). 217253 S.W. (2d) at 297, 298, 300. 21*Scoggins\. Cameron County W. I. Dist. No. 15, 264 S.W. (2d) 169,173 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954, error refused n.r.e.). 219 For such a case, see Kuehlerv. Texas Power Corp., 9 S.W. (2d) 435-437 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928), discussed under "Some Instances in Which Injunction Not Justified," infra. ... ™Matagorda Canal Co. v. Markham In. Co., 154 S.W. 1176, 1179-1180 (Tex. Civ. App. |