City of Tyler v. House, 4378.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 4378.,4378. |
| Citation | 64 S.W.2d 1007 |
| Parties | CITY OF TYLER v. HOUSE et ux. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Smith County; O. B. McPherson, Judge.
Action by L. C. House and wife against the City of Tyler. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Troy Smith, of Tyler, for appellant.
Butler, Price & Maynor, of Tyler, for appellees.
The city of Tyler owns 50 acres of land, located about four miles from the city, upon which it constructed a sewage disposal plant in the year 1930. All the waste from the city of Tyler was deposited in this disposal plant. The overflow from this plant drained into Black Fork creek. L. C. House and wife owned a farm of about 250 acres in the vicinity of the plant. The residence of House and wife is only about a quarter of a mile from the plant, and Black Fork creek runs through their farm.
House and wife brought this suit against the city of Tyler to recover damages to themselves in the enjoyment of their home, and also damage occasioned to their land as a result of the construction and operation by the city of its sewage disposal plant. The city denied any damage resulted to House and wife by virtue of its disposal plant, and especially alleged that if any damage resulted to them, it was by virtue of waste which drained into Black Fork creek from tourist camps, residences, etc.
There is evidence that filth which was not dissolved in the city's disposal plant would overflow from the plant and flow into Black Fork creek and across plaintiffs' land and that the creek would overflow and spread these waste matters over the plaintiffs' meadow and pastures, rendering the grass and water unfit for stock and causing the water in Black Fork creek to become stagnant and thereby cause a very great excess of mosquitoes and flies. That the flies and mosquitoes as well as the foul odors and gases given off from the plant, as well as the creek in its polluted condition, annoyed plaintiffs at their home to such an extent that it rendered their living there almost unbearable.
The jury's findings on special issues established the following facts: (1) That the operation of the disposal plant under the condition it had been operated during the time in question had materially increased the number of flies and mosquitoes in and about the premises of the plaintiffs; (2) that the disposal plant had materially polluted the atmosphere in and about the plaintiffs' house and premises with offensive stenches and odors; (3) that such conditions have caused plaintiffs material discomfort and annoyance in the occupation and enjoyment of their home and premises; (4) that $1,500 would reasonably and fairly compensate plaintiffs for such material discomfort and annoyance in the occupation and enjoyment of their home to the time of the trial; (5) that the operation of the disposal plant had materially reduced the rental value of plaintiffs' farm; and (6) that the loss in rental value for the time in question was the sum of $1,000. The court upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Austin v. Teague
...1963, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Day, 172 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1943, writ ref'd w. o. m.); City of Tyler v. House, 64 S.W.2d 1007 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1933, no writ); Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Hurst, 230 S.W. 1024 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1921, no writ); City of ......
-
Payne v. R.H. White Co.
...(State v. United Cork Cos., 116 N.J.Eq. 4, 12, 172 A. 347, affirmed 117 N.J.Eq. 437, 176 A. 142;City of Tyler v. House, Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 1007, 1008), and normal eyesight. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Henderson, 132 Va. 297, 310, 111 S.E. 277. In like manner it may be assumed that......
-
Etex Tel. Co-op., Inc. v. Sanders
...1958, no writ); Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Day, 172 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1943, writ ref'd w. o. m.); City of Tyler v. House, 64 S.W.2d 1007 (Tex.Civ.App.Texarkana 1933, no writ); Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Hurst, 230 S.W. 1024 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1921, no writ). However, Etex contends......
-
Payne v. R. H. White Co.
......United Cork Co. 116 N. J. Eq. 4, 12,. affirmed 117 N. J. Eq. 437; Tyler v. House, 64 S.W.2d 1007,. 1008 [Tex. Civ. App.]), and normal eyesight. ......