Goldsmith & Powell v. State, 13157.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 13157.,13157. |
| Parties | GOLDSMITH & POWELL et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; John A. Rawlins, Judge.
Suit by the State of Texas against Goldsmith & Powell and others to enjoin defendants from polluting the waters of the Neches River. From a judgment for plaintiff, named defendants and some of the other defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
M. H. Barton, of Overton, for appellants.
Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Richard H. Cocke and George W. Barcus, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
This suit was instituted by the State of Texas, through its Attorney General, Gerald C. Mann, against one hundred and fifty-five separate defendants, to enjoin them from polluting the waters of the Neches River. It is alleged that the defendants are the owners of oil wells along the watershed of the river, and are permitting salt water to flow from their respective wells into the river, thus polluting it, destroying fish and vegetation, and rendering the water unfit for domestic purposes by individuals, and by the public generally.
The cause went to trial before a jury, as to ten of the defendants only, and, on specific finding that the Neches River was polluted by salt water, or chlorides, rendering the water injurious to fish and other aquatic life, unfit for agricultural, domestic and industrial use, and that each of said defendants was permitting salt water, or chlorides, to escape into the river and its tributaries, thus contributing to its polluted condition, judgment was entered perpetually enjoining each defendant from allowing salt water and other deleterious substances to flow from his tanks, pits, reservoirs, ditches, or other receptacles on his premises, into the Neches River or any of its tributaries. Only five of the ten defendants enjoined have appealed, namely: Goldsmith & Powell, H. W. Donnell, W. H. McMurray, McMurray Corporation, and the Overton Refining Company.
The primary questions involved in this appeal are: The rights of the State to maintain the suit, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the jury, that appellants are contributing to the noxious condition of the waters of Neches River and its tributaries.
The waters of all natural streams of this State and of all fish and other aquatic life contained in fresh water rivers, creeks, streams and lakes, or sloughs subject to overflow from rivers or other streams within the borders of this State, are declared to be the property of the State; and the Game, Fish and Oyster Commissioner has jurisdiction over and control of such rivers and aquatic life. Arts. 4026 and 7467 R.C.S. The ownership is in trust for the people (Hoefs v. Short, 114 Tex. 501, 273 S.W. 785, 40 A.L.R. 833); and pollution of streams and water courses is condemned by both the civil statutes. Art. 4444 and Vernon's Annotated Penal Code Arts. 697, 698 and Art. 698a. The Constitution of Texas, Art. 16, § 59a, Vernon's Ann.St., designates rivers and streams as natural resources, declares that such belong to the State, and expressly invests the Legislature with the preservation and conservation of such resources. The fact that the Legislature has provided punishment, by fine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummins v. Travis County Water Dist. No. 17, 03-04-00049-CV.
...submerged lands to protect its citizens' health and safety and to conserve its natural resources. Goldsmith & Powell v. State, 159 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1942, writ ref'd) (State can take action to prevent pollution of trust resources). Even if waterfront land is privately own......
-
Cummins v. Travis County Water Control, No. 03-04-00049-CV (TX 6/3/2005)
...submerged lands to protect its citizens' health and safety and to conserve its natural resources. Goldsmith & Powell v. State, 159 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1942, writ ref'd) (State can take action to prevent pollution of trust resources). Even if waterfront land is privately o......
-
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. State
...injunction was properly issued under Art. 4444, V.A.C.S., and was properly issued independent of any statute. Goldsmith & Powell v. State, Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 159 S.W.2d 534, Writ Ref., which case was expressly approved by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Genecov, 143 Tex. 476, 186 S.W.2d 22......
-
Bachynsky v. State
...protect the interest of the people at large in matters in which they cannot act for themselves"); Goldsmith & Powell v. State, 159 S.W.2d 534 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1942, writ ref'd) (suit to enjoin pollution of river by salt water from oil wells); Allred v. Beggs, 125 Tex. 584, 84 S.W.2d 22......
-
CHAPTER 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN OIL & GAS ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES
...[199] 576 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Civ.App. 1978). [200] Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. State, 218 S.W.2d 855 (Tex. 1949); Goldsmith & Powell v. State, 159 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. 1942). [201] See: Nassr v. Commonwealth, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 477 N.E.2d 987 (May 9, 1985). The success or such ......