Burroughs v. City of Dallas
| Decision Date | 06 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3749. |
| Citation | 276 F. 812 |
| Parties | BURROUGHS v. CITY OF DALLAS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Francis Marion Etheridge and Charles T. McCormick, both of Dallas Tex. (Francis Marion Etheridge, Joseph Manson McCormick Henri Louie Bromberg and Charles Tilford McCormick, all of Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for appellant.
James J. Collins, City Atty., and Allen Charlton, both of Dallas Tex. (Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, and Thomas A. Knight all of Dallas, Tex., for State Fair of Texas, T. D. Gresham and J. Hart Willis, both of Dallas, Tex., for Fair Park Scenic Railway Co., and James J. Collins, Allen Charlton, and Carl B. Callaway, all of Dallas, Tex., for city of Dallas, on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN and KING, Circuit Judges.
This was a suit in equity brought by the appellant, a citizen of Illinois, living in Chicago, against the appellees, the city of Dallas, the State Fair of Texas, a Texas corporation, the Fair Park Scenic Railway Company, a Texas corporation, and Palmer G. Cameron, the manager of the last-named corporation. The relief sought was an injunction restraining the appellees, or either of them, from operating or permitting others to operate a described scenic railway in its present location on premises separated by Exposition avenue in the city of Dallas from a lot owned by the appellant, upon which is a residence containing 18 rooms, which is used as a boarding house, and such other relief as the appellant may be entitled to. The bill contained averments to the following effect The city of Dallas owns the property situated in that city which is known as Fair Park, which abuts on Exposition avenue, a part of which property fronts the above-mentioned property of the appellant, being separated therefrom by said avenue, which is 64 feet wide. By contract between the city of Dallas and the State Fair of Texas, the latter has been let into the joint or partial use of Fair Park, and during a period of 30 days of each year takes possession of said park, using it in conducting a State Fair. The appellees Fair Park Scenic Railway Company and its manager, Palmer G. Cameron, under some contract with their coappellees, or one of them, are permitted to operate said scenic railway. The scenic railway is a structure erected for the purpose of running pleasure cars on elevated and irregular iron rails, the cars running on iron wheels, and filled with joy riders when in action. The Scenic Railway Company and Cameron, acting in concert with their coappellees, operate the cars on the scenic railway habitually in the daytime and in the nighttime, thereby creating a great volume of noise and raucous sounds coming from the cars themselves and from the occupants of the cars. The noises so arising cause such discomfort to the occupants of the appellant's house as to render it almost uninhabitable. Those noises occur in the summer time almost nightly, and are particularly annoying on Sundays and other holidays, and especially so during the holding of the Texas State Fair in the fall of each year. The scenic railway cannot be operated without producing such noises, and when it is in operation it is impossible for persons on the front porch of the appellant's house to hear each other when talking in an ordinary tone of voice, and sleep is almost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corporation
...refused to enjoin merely upon the ground that they may attract crowds of persons. 46 C. J. 690, 692, note 15, 699. In Burroughs v. City of Dallas (C. C. A. 5) 276 F. 812, the court refused to restrain the operation of a scenic railway as a nuisance. No doubt it attracted crowds, at least to......
-
Kelliher v. Stone & Webster
...of which are doubtful." Consolidated Canal Co. v. Mesa Canal Co., 177 U. S. 296, 20 S. Ct. 628, 44 L. Ed. 777; Burroughs v. City of Dallas (C. C. A.) 276 F. 812. "The extraordinary process of injunction is never granted for the decisive and permanent enforcement of a right which is involved......
-
United States v. Cold Metal Process Co.
...Co. v. General R. Signal Co., 2 Cir., 153 F. 907; Madison Square Garden Corporation v. Braddock, 3 Cir., 90 F.2d 924; Burroughs v. City of Dallas, 5 Cir., 276 F. 812; United States v. Weirton Steel Co., D.C.Del., 7 F.Supp. 255, 265; United States v. Hartol Products Corp., D.C.N.J., 8 F.Supp......
-
Buchanan v. Milford Drive-In Theatre Corp.
...v. Davis, 40 W.Va. 464, 21 S.E. 906; the noise of an open-air amusement park, Edmunds v. Duff, 280 Pa. 355, 124 A. 489; Burroughs v. City of Dallas, 276 F. 812; v. Winch, 309 Ill. 158, 140 N.E. 847. Yet all noises, whether they come from family activities or the conduct of a business, are n......