Lawrence v. Atwood
| Decision Date | 27 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 6047,6047 |
| Citation | 295 S.W.2d 298 |
| Parties | Ralph E. LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. J. B. ATWOOD, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Sam Hoover, Pasadena, for appellant.
Carrigan & Smith, Pasadena, for appellee.
The appeal is from an order or judgment of the District Court of Harris County, 133 Judicial District, granting a temporary injunction restraining appellant from displaying the sign that is presently to be mentioned. As was proper in the circumstances, the appeal was originally perfected to the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals, and the case was then transferred to this court by the Supreme Court.
On or about July 15, 1954, appellant Ralph E. Lawrence purchased from appellee J. B. Atwood a house and lot in Pasadena, Texas, to be used as a home for himself and his family. After moving into the house he discovered that the door knobs were faulty and he complained of this to appellee. The knobs were replaced by the manufacturer, without cost to the appellant, but there appears to have been some delay before this was done. Appellant testified that he discovered other things wrong with the house but he did not specify what these were, and the record does not disclose clearly that he made any complaint to appellee about them. Then, some fifteen months after he had purchased the premises, the private sewer line leading from his bathrooms to the main sewer line became stopped up and water backed up and overflowed his two bathrooms. Appellant had the line cleaned out and the connections altered, and, claiming that concrete had been found in the line and that the line had been improperly installed in the first instance, requested appellee to pay the cost of the repairs, which amounted to $38. Appellee either refused outright to pay for the repairs or else declined to do so until he could investigate the matter-just which is not entirely clear-and on the following day, October 13, 1955, appellant erected in his own yard, in close proximity to his house, and in a position that rendered it clearly visible from two heavily travelled streets, a large sign board, on one side of which there appeared in bold print and by picture the following: On the other side of the board, there was this: 'For Sale A (another large painting of a lemon) Built by J. B. Atwood.'
Appellee Atwood, acting through his attorney, requested appellant to remove the sign. Appellant not only failed to comply with the request, but disclaimed any intention of doing so. Appellee then sued for both actual and exemplary damages, on the theory that the sign was libelous. In the same suit, he sought and was granted the temporary writ of injunction from which this appeal was taken.
Appellee averred in his petition, in substance, that he was a building contractor in Pasadena and customarily derived a large annual income from that business; that the sign was defamatory in nature, was untrue, and had been maliciously erected for the purpose of injuring, defaming and libeling him; that it subjected his good name to question, impugned his reputation for honesty and integrity, and was calculated to make him the object of public hatred, contempt and ridicule; that the sign had injured and would continue to injure him in his business and occupation; that it had caused him financial loss and would prevent him from deriving from his business and occupation the ordinary pecuniary rewards that would otherwise come to him; that it had caused him embarrassment and mental pain and suffering; that appellant could not be made to respond in damages; and that he himself had no adequate remedy at law.
It is undisputed that appellee was engaged in the business of building and selling houses in Pasadena and the surrounding area. He had built and sold some sixty houses in the town itself and had others in process of construction, three or four of the latter being situated on the same street on which appellant's house and the sign were situated. Appellee introduced evidence to the effect that between the time the sign was erected and the date of the hearing-fourteen days-the number of people evidencing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov
...Neb. 722, 559 N.W.2d 740, 747 (1997) ; Venturelli v. Trovero, 346 Ill.App. 429, 105 N.E.2d 306, 308 (1952) ; Lawrence v. Atwood, 295 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1956) ; West Willow Realty Corp. v. Taylor, 23 Misc.2d 867, 198 N.Y.S.2d 196, 198 (Sup. Ct. 1960).58 Michael I. Meyerson, ......
-
Sid Dillon Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, Inc. v. Sullivan
...36 (1959); Schmoldt v. Oakley, 390 P.2d 882 (Okla.1964); Willing v. Mazzocone, 482 Pa. 377, 393 A.2d 1155 (1978); Lawrence v. Atwood, 295 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Civ.App.1956); Kwass v. Kersey, 139 W.V. 497, 81 S.E.2d 237 (1954). Among the rationales traditionally advanced to support the propositio......
-
Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., 92-C-1032-B.
...Feminelli, 745 S.W.2d 576 (Tex.Ct.App. 1988); Dallas Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Mouer, 533 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Civ.App.1976); and Lawrence v. Atwood, 295 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Civ.App. 1956). The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides protection against government action, not the action of......
-
Kukatush Mining Corp. v. Securities and Exchange Com'n
...114 F.Supp. 604 (W.D.Ark.1953); New American Library of World Literature v. Allen, 114 F.Supp. 823 (N.D. Ohio 1953); Lawrence v. Atwood, 295 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Civ.App.1956); see generally 28 Am.Jur. § 134. But see, Krebiozen Research Foundation v. Beacon Press, 334 Mass. 86, 134 N.E.2d 1 3 We......