Haynes v. Hedrick

• Decision Date: 03 July 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 8485.)
• Parties: HAYNES et al. v. HEDRICK et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 550

223 S.W. 550

HAYNES et al. v. HEDRICK et al.

(No. 8485.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

July 3, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.

Suit by W. M. Haynes and others against W. C. Hedrick and others. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Parks, Hall, Hurt & Kveton, of Dallas, for appellants.

Henry P. Edwards, and Cockrell, Gray, McBride & O'Donnell, all of Dallas, for appellees.

RAINEY, C. J.

Appellants sued to restrain appellees from building a house, a bed factory, and presented their petition to the district judge of the Sixty-Eighth district of Dallas county, who, upon hearing, sustained a general demurrer to appellant's petition, and upon appellant refusing to amend dismissed the cause of action, from which this appeal is taken.

The petition for an injunction reads:

"The State of Texas, County of Dallas.

"To the 68th Judicial District Court of Texas, in Dallas County: W. M. Haynes, W. H. Mitchell, Walter Busby, Lula Spivey, Simon Tobian and Mrs. A. L. Simpson, hereinafter styled plaintiffs, complaining of W. C. Hedrick and W. C. Hedrick Construction Company, hereinafter styled defendants, represent and show to the court:

"(1) That the plaintiffs each reside in Dallas county, state of Texas. That the defendant Hedrick Construction Company is a corporation duly incorporated and is represented in Dallas county, state of Texas, by ____ as its local agent and he resides in said county. That the defendant W. C. Hedrick resides in Tarrant county, state of Texas, but is temporarily to be found in Dallas county, Tex.

"(2) That the defendant W. C. Hedrick or the defendants W. C. Hedrick and Hedrick Construction Company are the owners of the following described land, lots numbers 1, 2, and 3 in block 472-A, Middleton Bros., Central Avenue addition to the city of Dallas, Tex., situated in the city and county of Dallas, state of Texas, the said property being surrounded, near to and in close proximity to the place of residence of each of the plaintiffs herein and of many other residences in that immediate vicinity. That Mrs. A. L. Simpson has her residence and resides with her family on lot No. 4, that the plaintiff W. M. Haynes resides with his family on lot No. 5, that ____ Mitchell resides with his family on lot No. 6, and plaintiffs Busby, Spivey and Tobian reside on other lots in the immediate vicinity, all in said block, and the plaintiffs and each of them have had their homes and residences in that vicinity for a long time last past undisturbed by and without annoyance from manufacturing establishments such as iron-clad or tin buildings with bed spring and mattress factories therein and undisturbed by such nuisances and the noise and sound emanating therefrom, and which will naturally emanate therefrom in the conduct of said business, and especially the said business situated in an iron-clad or tin building. That heretofore the ____ day of June, A. D. 1920, the defendant or defendants applied to the commission or the city of Dallas for a permit to erect and construct an iron-clad or tin building covering 14,000 square feet of floor space on said lots Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in said block No. 472-A in said addition, and the said defendants are now preparing to construct the said nuisance, the said unsightly building, for the purpose of carrying on or have carried on therein what is commonly known as a bed factory, and if the said iron-clad or tin building should be erected, so near to the property of the plaintiffs, and should be used for said purpose or for conducting a manufacturing business therein, the same will constitute a nuisance and would work great hurt, inconvenience, discomfort, and damage to all of the plaintiffs herein as well as to their immediate neighbors residing in said community, and will greatly depreciate the value of the property of the plaintiffs, and will result in a multiplicity of suits at law for damages, and the defendants will immediately commence the construction of the said building and will construct the same for said purposes unless they are restrained by this court's most gracious writ of injunction from so doing, and the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury and the plaintiffs herein have no adequate remedy at law to protect themselves from the physical and mental discomfiture that will arise from the erection of said building and from the depreciation in value of their said respective homes and homesteads unless...