Miller v. Dickinson
| Decision Date | 18 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6673.) |
| Citation | 236 S.W. 1014 |
| Parties | MILLER et al. v. DICKINSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Robert W. B. Terrell, Judge.
Suit by Frank J. Miller and others against H. E. Dickinson and another. From a judgment denying a temporary injunction, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
J. F. Carl and P. H. Swearingen, Jr., both of San Antonio, for appellants.
Douglas & Carter, of San Antonio, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a temporary injunction to restrain appellees from subdividing or selling certain real property situated on Topeka boulevard "with a view of having said lots back up on said Topeka boulevard, or from constructing or permitting the construction thereon of any outhouses, barns, garages, stables, servant houses, wood houses, cow pens, or anything else which commonly goes with the back yard, on said property in front of these plaintiffs, and next to and adjoining Topeka boulevard." There were fourteen plaintiffs, who are appellants herein, and two defendants, H. E. Dickinson and Otto A. Pfeiffer, who are appellees in this court.
It was alleged that Pfeiffer is the owner of a vacant tract of land in the city of San Antonio, bounded on the north by Schley avenue, on the east by South Hackberry street, on the south by Topeka boulevard, and on the west by Cherry street; that appellees were contemplating and intending to subdivide the tract into lots, all of which will front on Schley avenue and have their back yards on Topeka boulevard, directly across that street from the homes of appellants which front on said boulevard, and will build barns, garages, and such other improvements as are built on the rear of lots which will be detrimental to and practically destroy the value of appellants' homes.
The evidence showed that Dickinson bought the tract of land from Pfeiffer and intended to extend an established street through the land, to be known as Clifford court, that the extension would cause the lots between Clifford court and Topeka boulevard to be 140 feet deep, and if they fronted on the one or other the rear of them would necessarily be on one or the other. The land has not yet been divided into lots. Dickinson intends to require the lots to front on Clifford court, and will restrict the building of all buildings or outhouses to not less than 20 feet from the line of Topeka boulevard.
The proof showed that there was no intention to plat or sell lots in violation of any ordinance, but, if there had been such intention, it would not constitute a ground for injunction for it is held "that a bill in equity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Street v. Marshall
... ... 1069; Haynes v. Hedrick, ... 223 S.W. 550; Worm v. Wood, 223 S.W. 1016; Von ... Hatzfeld v. Neece. 223 S.W. 1034; Miller v ... Dickinson, 236 S.W. 1014. (3) If the complainant's ... right is doubtful, or the thing which it is sought to ... restrain is not a ... ...
-
Repka v. American Nat. Ins. Co.
...that discretion is shown. Herman v. Forrest, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W. 624; Davidson v. Wells, Tex.Civ.App., 233 S.W. 518; Miller v. Dickinson, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W. 1014; Beall v. Barsch, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 761. Since the application therefor was dismissed for the alleged lack of jurisd......
-
Landwer v. Fuller
...264 S.W. 612." Such rule is likewise supported by the following cases: Beall v. Barsch, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 761; Miller v. Dickinson, Tex.Civ. App., 236 S.W. 1014; Simon v. Nance, Tex. Civ.App., 142 S.W. 661; and 31 Tex.Jur. 445, sec. In the instant case the trial court did not file a f......
-
Harrison v. Langlinais
...276 S.W. 471; Woods v. Kiersky, Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W. 518; Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 235 S.W. 513; Miller v. Dickinson, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W. 1014. Nor does the fact that the construction of the improvements complained of is brought about through malice or ill will alter the ......