City of Sherman v. Langham

• Decision Date: 16 May 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 1042
• Parties: CITY OF SHERMAN <I>v.</I> LANGHAM.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 1042

CITY OF SHERMANv.

LANGHAM.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 16, 1890.

Commissioners' decision. Consent case. Appeal from district court, Grayson county.

A. Mayfield and Bryant & Dillard, for appellant. Wilkins & Hazlewood, for respondent.

ACKER, J.

R. Langham brought this suit against the city of Sherman to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by him in consequence of the negligence of defendant in maintaining a dump ground or place of deposit for dead animals, garbage, and filth of all kinds adjacent to plaintiff's home. The defendant answered by general exception, general denial, and specially pleaded the exercise of diligence in the use of the ground, and that, if any matter was deposited thereon so as to become a nuisance, it was done without the knowledge and consent of defendant, and it was not responsible therefor. It also set up in its answer that the land had been purchased and designated by it as a place of deposit of garbage and refuse matter before the plaintiff established his residence adjacent to it, and that the plaintiff, therefore, had no right to complain. The general exception was overruled, and the trial by jury resulted in verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,164, from which this appeal is taken.

The petition was good on general demurrer, and the court did not err in so holding. It is contended that the plaintiff could not recover, because he purchased his property and located thereon after the dump ground was established by defendant, and thereby contributed to his injury if he had sustained any. The contention cannot be sustained. The action was brought to recover damages resulting from the negligent and improper manner in which the defendant managed and maintained the place of deposit. It was not sought to recover damages for the mere establishing and designating the place as a dump ground. In establishing his residence near the ground that had been so designated, the plaintiff had the right to rely upon the proper performance of duty on the part of the defendant so that the place would not become a nuisance to his injury. It is well settled that a municipal corporation is liable for the damages sustained by a citizen in consequence of such corporation permitting such ground under its control to become a nuisance. City of Fort Worth v. Crawford, 74 Tex. 404, 12 S. W. Rep. 52. This is very similar to the Crawford Case. The other questions presented here were involved in that case, and there decided...