Parsons v. Uvalde Electric Light Co.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1914
• Citation: 163 S.W. 1
• Parties: PARSONS et al. v. UVALDE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 1

163 S.W. 1

PARSONS et al. v. UVALDE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 4, 1914.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by W. H. Parsons and others against the Uvalde Electric Light Company. A judgment for plaintiffs was reversed and remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals (138 S. W. 163), and plaintiffs bring error. Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of district court affirmed.

Love & Williams and Jno. W. Hill, all of Uvalde, for plaintiffs in error. Martin, Old & Martin, G. B. Fenley, and Claud Lawrence, all of Uvalde, for defendant in error.

BROWN, C. J.

For the purpose of this case the following condensed statement of the facts will be sufficient: The plaintiff in error W. H. Parsons owned, and he with his wife and children occupied, certain lots in the city of Uvalde for a number of years prior to the erection by the defendant in error of its plant and the putting of the same into operation, which occurred in the year 1907. More than two years after the completion of the buildings and the location of the machinery and the commencement of the operation of the same, Parsons, joining with him his wife and children, instituted a suit in the district court of that county against the Electric Light Company to recover damages occasioned to his home place in the reduction of its market value by reason of the operation of the said machinery, and also to recover damages to himself and family which had been caused at different times by the operation of the said machinery from the beginning until the time of the filing of the suit, and which occurred from time to time during the operation of the said machinery by reason of the smoke, dust, cinders, and other things which originated in and continued with the operation of the said machinery, and by which, from time to time, annoyance, inconvenience, personal discomfort, and sickness were caused to the different members of the family. The defendant, the Electric Light Company, filed a special demurrer to the petition on the ground that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation of two years, under which it was contended that the right of action for damages, both in the reduction of the value of the land and in the creation of inconveniences, personal discomfort, etc., arose at the time that the machinery was completed and put into operation, more than two years before the filing of the petition, and was barred. The plaintiff dismissed as to the damages caused by the reduction in the value of the land, and the case went to trial. The court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff damages arising from the operation of the machinery and causing personal inconvenience, sickness, and the like of the plaintiff and his family, but limited the right of recovery to such as accrued within the period of two years next preceding the filing of the petition. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $500 for himself and $500 for his wife, but found nothing in favor of the children of plaintiff. From this judgment the Electric Light Company appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded it for a further trial, basing this action upon the ground that the court erred in not sustaining the special demurrer to the plaintiff's petition on the ground that the action was barred within two years from the completion and commencement of the operation of the machinery. The plaintiff in error alleged that the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals practically settled the case, and upon that ground the writ of error was granted by this court.

The sole question presented to us is: Did the right of action for damages to the plaintiff and his wife,...