Rogers v. Scaling
| Decision Date | 02 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 15688,15688 |
| Citation | 285 S.W.2d 259 |
| Parties | S. J. ROGERS et al., Appellants, v. Charles SCALING, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Keith, Mehaffy & McNicholas and Quentin Keith, Beaumont, for appellant.
Morgan & Shropshire and Cecil A. Morgan, Fort Worth, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of a District Court of Tarrant County, overruling a plea of privilege filed by appellants S. J. Rogers and N. Jay Rogers, to be sued in Jefferson County where both reside.
Appellee Charles Scaling sued appellants and Seventh Street Realty Company, a corporation domiciled in Trarrant County, alleging that appellee owns Lot 5, in Block 5, of Hirschfield Addition to the City of Fort Worth, and that Seventh Street Realty Company is the owner and appellants are the lessees of the adjoining lot, Lot 4. He further alleged: that his lot is on the west side of Houston Street, and situated on it is a one-story basement building; that it is located in the central area of downtown Fort Worth and is valuable as commercial rent property; that on or about June 7, 1955, defendants erected a large sign, about ten feet square and twelve inches thick, adjacent to his property and on the property line between Lots 4 and 5, which reads, 'Texas State Optical' and under this are the words, 'Eyes Examined'; that electric lights have been installed in said sign; that the sign is painted in bold colors; that by reason of its dimensions, location, colors, lights and physical construction, the sign completely blocks from view of all persons who may be traveling along Houston Street, between Seventh and Eighth Streets, the building owned by appellee; that the sign is of such construction and is so located that it leaves the erroneous impression that it is located on appellee's property, making it impossible for appellee or a tenant of his to construct a sign that could be seen by people moving in said street, thus destroying the value of appellee's property as a retail business establishment; that Houston Street is a one-way street for motor vehicular traffic, such traffic moving south, and that such sign blocks the view of those traveling in motor vehicles; that by the erection of such sign the defendants are making an unreasonable use of Lot 4 to the injury of appellee's property; that the size, weight and dimensions of the sign constitute a danger to the life and limb of any person passing under or near it, and particularly to appellee's property, and is a hazard to appellee's property and the plate glass windows in the front portion of his building; that the electric wires leading to the lights on said sign are a hazard and danger to the appellee's property; that the erection and maintenance of the sign caused appellee to lose a long-term rental contract for his property at a rental of $1,000 per month. Appellee also alleged that he had no adequate remedy at law and prayed for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to remove the sign, and, in the alternative, asked for damages in the sum of $10,000.
In his controverting affidavit appellee alleged that the court had venue under Art. 1995, sudb. 14,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Gulf Television Co.
...of privilege case, we have jurisdiction because of conflicting holdings by the Courts of Civil Appeals set forth in Rogers v. Scaling, Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth, 285 S.W.2d 259 1 and Gulf Television Company v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App. Galveston, 301 S.W.2d 256. See Articles 1728 and 1821, Revised ......
-
Anglo Exploration Corp. v. Grayshon
...412 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1963, no writ); Hunt Oil Co. v. Murchison, 352 S.W.2d 365 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1961, no writ); Rogers v. Scaling, 285 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1955, mand. overr.). The nature of plaintiff's claim is determined by the principal right asserted in pla......
-
James v. Drye
...easement rights. See Morris Plan Bank of Ft. Worth v. Ogden, supra; Tracy v. King, Tex.Civ.App., 249 S.W.2d 642; Rogers v. Scaling, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W.2d 259. I think it would be more consistent with the record to hold venue in Hays County under Subdivision 14 solely, rather than Subdivi......
-
Wynne v. Freiley
...of Subsection 14 is determined by the allegations in the petition as a matter of law and is not a question of fact. Rogers v. Scaling, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W.2d 259; Allison v. Yarborough, Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W.2d 930; Ross v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 220; Cox v. Palacios, Tex.Civ.Ap......