Rainey v. Red River, T. & S. Ry. Co.

Decision Date09 November 1905
Citation89 S.W. 768
PartiesRAINEY v. RED RIVER, T. & S. RY. CO. et al.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Action by S. D. Rainey against the Red River, Texas & Southern Railway Company and others. There was a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (80 S. W. 95) affirming a judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Ross & McLean, for plaintiff in error. West, Chapman & West and Theodore Mack, for defendants in error.

GAINES, C. J.

In their opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals have made a very full statement of this case, which we adopt and copy:

"Appellant instituted suit to enjoin and restrain the appellees, railway companies, from maintaining and operating their terminal and switch yards, roundhouse, engine house, machine shops, water tank, and coal bins, and from using their tracks for switching trains and cars, distributing cars, making up trains, coaling, watering, and firing steam engines and locomotives, and from repairing and storing engines in said roundhouse and engine house, within certain defined territory in close proximity to his residence. He alleged: That the lot, upon which was situated his residence, was highly and well improved, having thereon a commodious two-story dwelling house, a stable, shade trees, shrubbery, fruit trees, vines, and flowers, with the appurtenances, and that in the said dwelling house, with the appurtenances, the said plaintiff and his family dwelt. That said lot and dwelling house, with the appurtenances, are now and have been for a long time, to wit, 17 years, occupied and used by him and his family. That said lot and dwelling house, but for the grievances, wrongs, and injuries complained of, were suitable for a home for himself and family, and would be of the reasonable value of not less than $15,000, and that, prior to the grievances and acts of annoyance complained of, said lot and dwelling house, with the appurtenances, were comfortable and convenient as a residence and home for himself and family, and were by them used and enjoyed, unmolested and free from annoyances. That the defendants have built, constructed, and placed, and are now maintaining and using continuously, a number of railroad tracks, to wit, more than five in number, north, northeast, and northwest of and near the said lot and dwelling house. That said railway tracks are placed within 300 feet of said lot and dwelling house. That defendants have constructed and erected, and are now maintaining and using continuously, near and within 300 feet of said lot and dwelling house, a large water tank for supplying water for their engines. That defendants have constructed and built, and are now maintaining and using continuously, near and within 300 feet of said lot and dwelling house, large coal bins, together with derricks for supplying coal for their engines. That defendants have constructed and built and erected, and are now maintaining and using continuously, near and within 300 feet of plaintiff's said lot and dwelling house, a large roundhouse and engine house for storing their engines, and that defendants have erected and built, and are now maintaining and using continuously, near and within 300 feet of said lot and residence, large railroad machine and repair shops. That the said defendants have placed and used, and are now maintaining and using continuously, near and within 300 feet of plaintiff's said lot and dwelling house, their terminal and switch yards. That the said railroad tracks, water tanks, coal bins, derricks, roundhouse, machine and repair shops, and terminal and switch yards are upon and cover certain territory, the metes and bounds of which are fully set forth. That in maintaining and using the said machine and repair shops the defendants continuously make loud and deafening noises, which interrupt and disturb plaintiff in the use and enjoyment of his said home. That, in permitting cars laden with live stock to stand on said tracks, stenches, noises, smoke, steam, and dirt are caused, which annoy and injure plaintiff in the use and enjoyment of his said lot and residence. That a large number of locomotives and steam engines are habitually housed and their fires made in said engine house, and are coaled, watered, repaired, and otherwise used on said tracks and in said repair shops. That defendants, and each of them, in watering, coaling, firing, switching, operating, and otherwise using the locomotives and steam engines, and distributing cars, making up trains, and steam engines cause constantly and continuously loud and deafening noises, by ringing the engine bells, blowing engine whistles, blowing off steam, and propelling engines and cars. That said steam engines, locomotives, and cars emit clouds of smoke, dust, cinders, sparks, noxious vapors, and steam from the engines, with great force and noise, jarring and shocking plaintiff's said dwelling house. That the sparks, cinders, soot, smoke, and noxious vapors from said engines have been, and are still, continuously blown and thrown in and upon plaintiff's said premises, and against, and into his said dwelling house and stable, on his furniture, furnishings, and clothing. That the stenches, smoke, dirt, noise, jars, and shocks, caused as aforesaid, are so great that plaintiff and his family are continuously incommoded, inconvenienced, annoyed, and harassed in the possession, use, occupation, and enjoyment of said dwelling house, with the appurtenances. That the noise, jars, and shocks are such that a conversation cannot be carried on in plaintiff's said premises, and that he and his family cannot sleep at night without constantly and continuously being awakened, annoyed, harassed, and shocked. That the disagreeable and offensive odors from cars laden with live stock added to the smoke, noise, cinders, and sparks render plaintiff's said property, not only uncomfortable and disagreeable, but entirely undesirable as a home and residence. That on account of these things, he has been forced to abandon a portion of his dwelling house, and that if defendants, or either of them, are permitted to continue the use of said tracks, grounds, and yards in the manner shown, his property will have to be abandoned and will be lost. That the place described is in a densely populated part of the city of Ft. Worth, and a great many citizens, to wit, more than 50, are annoyed and inconvenienced in like manner as plaintiff. No judgment for damages was asked, but an injunction alone sought as before shown. The defendants pleaded that they had legally acquired the ground upon which were situated their terminals in the city of Ft. Worth; that they operated their roads with all modern appliances, with due regard to the accommodation and service of the general public, both as to freight and passenger traffic; that they owned in fee simple their right of way, sidings, switches, etc., and that their water tanks, roundhouses, etc., were all necessary in the maintenance and operation of the said railroads, and in the transaction of their business along and over their line of road, as constructed and maintained in the corporate limits in the city of Ft. Worth; that they had fully complied with all the laws of the state and the ordinances of the city.

"A single issue was submitted to the jury in the following charge: `If you find and believe from the evidence that the defendants are maintaining and operating a switchyard and roundhouse, and are watering, coaling, and firing their engines at their watering tanks and coal bins within the territory described in plaintiff's petition, and that the operation and maintenance of said switchyard and roundhouse, and such watering, coaling,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc. v. Bates
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 2004
    ...injunction improper as one cause of action was invalid in Texas and other was not submitted to jury). 116. Rainey v. Red River, T. & S. Ry. Co., 99 Tex. 276, 89 S.W. 768, 772 (1905) (suggesting landowner could be relegated to monetary compensation even though jury found railroad was nuisanc......
  • Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 24 Junio 2016
    ...and may choose not to abate either even if that is the only remedy requested." Id . at 286–87 (citing Rainey v. Red River T. & S. Ry. Co., 99 Tex. 276,89 S.W. 768, 772 (1905) ).20 When an injunction or abatement is inappropriate, the claimant may recover damages. See DOBBS § 404, at 645 ("C......
  • Matthias v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 1914
    ...& T. Ry. Co. v. Shaw, 99 Tex. 559, 92 S.W. 30, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1245, 122 Am. St. 663, is evidently not out of harmony with Rainey v. Red River, T. & S. Ry. Co. supra, for it relates to the necessary and operations of trains at a properly-located station. It holds that personal discomfort to......
  • Sitas v. City of San Angelo
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 31 Diciembre 1943
    ...to exempt those creating or responsible for maintaining the nuisance from liability for damages occasioned by it. Rainey v. Red River, T. & S. Ry. Co., 99 Tex. 276, 89 S.W. 768, 90 S.W. 1096, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 590, 122 Am.St.Rep. 622, 13 Ann.Cas. The court also erred in taking the case from th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT