The opinion
On Motions for Rehearing.
Both the' appellant and appellees have filed motions for rehearing in this case; the latter seriously insisting, as they did in the original hearing, that article 4682b, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. St., is void and should not be enforced, that the act was passed by the Legislature in violation of the antitrust statutes of this state, and that its enforcement would be confiscatory of their property, and should be enjoined until the *776 case could be tried on its merits. They cite us to many cases wherein the courts have used similar language in connection with issues then before them, as that insisted upon in the case at bar. We have carefully studied the several decisions cited along with many more, but are not inclined to change our view as expressed in the original opinion.
Appellant complains in its motion for rehearing that we did not specifically state in our original opinion whether or not we had overruled their assignments of error raising the issue of jurisdiction in the trial court.
From the wording of our opinion, and more specifically that part wherein it referred to these assignments, the criticism would seertl justified, but, after reaching the conclusions shown by the opinion, we did say: “We have not discussed in detail the assignments of error by the Board of Commissioners, but have considered them in groups as they pertain to the conclusions reached by us and have sustained those agreeable with our views as expressed herein and have overruled those not in harmony with our conclusions.” We meant by the quoted statement that, since we were considering the appeal as if the trial court did have jurisdiction, the assignments raising the issue were overruled.
Appellees have renewed their contention that the trial court was without jurisdiction to try this cause, for the reason the only relief sought by them was injunc-tive, and that, under article 4656, Rev. Civ. Statutes, the writ should have been returnable to the county of the residence of one of the defendants and not to the court issuing the writ.
In the first place, the writ was made returnable to the Ninety-Sixth district court of Tarrant county, and, if appellant’s contention is correct that it should have been made returnable to the district court of the county in which one of the defendants had a domicile, the writ was void and the court would have had no power to transfer the case, Thallman v. Buckholts State Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 181 S.W. 791 , but should have dismissed the action. We cannot agree with appellant that this is a suit for injunction alone, and therefore controlled by the jurisdictional statute, article 4656. We have again read carefully appellees’ petition upon which the case was tried, and find they claimed to own valuable property worth more than $60,000, and that a law had been passed by the Legislature, known as article 4682b, by the terms of which the board of insurance commissioners was claiming the right to fix and regulate the rate of insurance premiums , and classifications of such risks, that the act was void for the reason it was enacted in violation of the Constitution, article 3, § 35, and was in violation of the anti-trust statutes of Texas, and that the enforcement of its provisions would be confiscatory of their property, and that they had no adequate remedy at law, asking for a temporary injunction restraining defendants from enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the same, pending this suit; concluding with a prayer that upon final trial article 4682b in all things be declared void and that defendants be permanently enjoined from enforcing its provisions.
The judgment rendered by the court and appealed from, after a recitation of findings, says: “It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the defendants and each of them, their agents, servants, employees, and representatives be restrained and enjoined, pending the trial of this case on its merits, from enforcing or further attempting to enforce the rules, rates,” etc.
We concluded, and so found, that the suit was -instituted to try out the validity of a statute which was alleged to be void. and confiscatory of plaintiffs’ property. They sought a temporary injunction restraining its enforcement until, the case could be tried on its merits, and that the injunction was ancillary to the main suit, therefore not controlled by article 4656, Rev.Civ.Statutes, and, in the absence of a plea of privilege, the trial court acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. Lindley v. Easley et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 59 S.W.(2d) 927 .
We adhere to the disposition made of the case in our former opinion, and, with the explanations made herein of our ruling on the assignments of error raising the question of jurisdiction, we overrule both motions for rehearing.