City of Tyler v. Story
Citation | 97 S.W. 856 |
Parties | CITY OF TYLER et al. v. STORY. |
Decision Date | 21 November 1906 |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Smith County; R. W. Simpson, Judge.
Action by Ed Story against the city of Tyler and others. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
This is an appeal from a decree perpetually enjoining the city of Tyler, its mayor, city attorney, and marshal, their agents, servants and employés from prosecuting or enforcing a certain ordinance of said city against the appellee.
The bill upon which the decree was rendered alleges in substance: That the city of Tyler has an area of territory three miles square. That said city, through its officers, passed an ordinance, which became effective in 1905, which is as follows: That plaintiff (Ed Story) is engaged in raising fine hogs in the city of Tyler for sale, and was so engaged long before said ordinance was passed. That his premises where he raises and keeps his hogs are within one mile from the center of the public square of said city. That such premises are isolated from the public, not on any public street, nor close to any residence, and are kept clean, free from any stench or odor, and in a sanitary condition. That plaintiff has invested large sums of money in such business and realizes an annual net income therefrom of $800. That said ordinance is void because (1) unauthorized by the city charter, and, it not being a nuisance per se for one to keep hogs on his own premises, the city had no authority to declare such keeping a nuisance; (2) it discriminates against plaintiff in favor of persons keeping hogs one mile from the public square in the city, while it inhibits their being kept within one mile from the square; (3) it contravenes article 1, § 17, of the Constitution of the state, in that it takes, damages, and destroys the property and privileges of plaintiff for public use without compensation; (4) it contravenes article 1, § 19, of the Constitution, in that it deprives plaintiff of property, privileges, and immunities without due process of law; and (5) it is unreasonable, in that it declares the keeping of hogs on one's own premises a nuisance, regardless of whether the premises are kept in a sanitary condition or not. That the city of Tyler, through its officers, is threatening him with a multiplicity of vexatious and unfounded prosecutions under said ordinance; and that said prosecutions will be illegal and unjust, will cause plaintiff great trouble and expense in defending same, loss of time, attorney's fees, besides deteriorate, damage and destroy his business. That he has no remedy at law, and that the loss will be irreparable, and a great injustice and injury will be done him if said ordinance is allowed to stand. The bill closes with a prayer for a writ of injunction against the city of Tyler, its servants, agents, and employés, forbidding them enforcing said ordinance in any manner. The city of Tyler and such of its officers as were made defendants answered by general and special exceptions to the bill, and by plea admitted the passage of the ordinance in question, averring that it was authorized and valid; that plaintiff was keeping hogs in the city in violation of it, and admitted their intention of prosecuting him for its violation for the purpose of enforcing it. The case was tried without a jury, and, upon hearing the evidence, the court rendered the decree appealed from.
The evidence introduced, after showing the passage and publication of the ordinance in question, is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
... ... Denied 235 Mo.App. 156 at 166 ... Appeal ... from the Circuit Court of City of St. Louis.--Hon. Joseph J ... Ward, Judge ... ... Judgment reversed ... ...
-
Dibrell v. City of Coleman
...setting up the invalidity of the ordinance does not, in fact, afford him full, complete, and adequate relief. In City of Tyler v. Storey, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 250, 97 S. W. 856, from the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth District, cited and relied upon by appellant, referring to the general......
-
Bielecki v. City of Port Arthur
...which proposition appellee advances in bar of appellant's cause of action, on the following authorities: City of Tyler v. Story, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 250, 97 S. W. 856; Dibrell v. City of Coleman (Tex. Civ. App.) 172 S. W. 550; City of Austin v. Austin's Cemetery Association, 87 Tex. 330, 28 S......
-
City of Houston v. Richter
...setting up the invalidity of the ordinance does not, in fact, afford him full, complete, and adequate relief. In City of Tyler v. Story, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 250, 97 S. W. 856, from the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth District, cited and relied upon by appellant, referring to the general ......