Jacobs & Wright v. Brigham
Decision Date | 18 December 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 8398.) |
Citation | 227 S.W. 249 |
Parties | JACOBS & WRIGHT et al. v. BRIGHAM et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. T. Brigham and others against Jacobs & Wright and others. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Thos. R. Bond, of Temee, for appellants.
H. R. Young and Wynne & Wynne, all of Kaufman, for appellees.
Appellees brought this suit against appellants to enjoin them from erecting a building to be used for mules, horses, and other live stock, and feed barn on lots, alleging that said building would be used as a mule and horse barn and stable and also as a general feed stable, and, when erected, appellants' headquarters would be at this building for the buying and selling live stock and for stabling all manner of live stock, and for the storing and selling feed; that a large number of horses and mules will be kept, stabled, and fed in this barn; that the building and manner of use to which the barn is to be put and the using of this barn and stable by appellants will create a nuisance to such an extent that it will destroy the rights and benefit to appellees to use their property as their homes and will materially interfere with the enjoyment of their homes and will destroy the value of appellees' property; that the erection of said building and its use as a barn will constitute a nuisance to the health of appellees and their families by causing and creating filth, offal, excrement, and urine on the aforesaid lots in and around said barn, will also create vapors, noxious gases, and odors, and flies to an extent as will endanger the health of appellees and their families and will destroy the use of appellees' property, rendering same unfit for occupancy as homes.
Appellants answered by general exception and general denial, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Austin v. Bush
...the nuisance is of a permanent or temporary character. Town of Jacksonville v. McCracken (Tex. Sup.) 232 S. W. 294; Jacobs & Wright v. Brigham (Tex. Civ. App.) 227 S. W. 249; Oliver v. Forney Cotton Oil & Ginning Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 1094; City of Honey Grove v. Mills (Tex. Civ. A......
-
Day v. Ryan, 47A01-8910-CV-391
...Co. (1986), 511 Pa. 465, 515 A.2d 550 (under Pennsylvania tax law, a stockyard is not an agricultural business); Jacobs & Wright v. Brigham (1920), Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W. 249 (affirming trial court's grant of a nuisance injunction against a stockyard because the jury found the yard was not ......
-
O'Daniel v. Libal
...such injury and annoyance would increase in the future, the court had the power to enjoin a continuance thereof. Jacobs & Wright v. Brigham, Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W. 249; Lewis v. Berney, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 246 (error ref.); Moore et al. v. Coleman, Tex.Civ. App., 185 S.W. 936; Elliott v.......
-
Patton v. Carter
...to warrant submission of the case to the jury. It is well settled that a threatened nuisance will be enjoined. Jacobs & Wright v. Brigham, Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W. 249; Landwer v. Fuller, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d By his second point, appellant says the trial court erred in permitting the appe......