Royse Independent School Dist. v. Reinhardt
|02 July 1913
|ROYSE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al. v. REINHARDT et al.
|Texas Court of Appeals
Appeal from District Court, Rockwall County; Kenneth Foree, Judge.
Suit by M. E. Reinhardt and others against the Royse Independent School District and others. From a judgment granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal. Reversed, and injunction dissolved.
T. B. Ridgell, of Rockwall, and A. H. Mount, of Royse, for appellants. E. D. Foree and H. M. Wade, both of Rockwall, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a temporary restraining order or injunction, granted by the district judge of the Fourteenth judicial district of Texas in chambers on June 21, 1913, at the suit of M. E. Reinhardt and others against the trustees of the Royse independent school district of Rockwall county and the members of the Royse Booster Club, restraining the trustees of said school district and the members of said club from performing a contract between said trustees and the members of said club, by the terms of which the said trustees granted to said club the privilege of using the south end of the public school campus as a ball grounds during the period intervening between the close of school in the spring and the commencement of school in the fall, and for a term of three years, in consideration that such Booster Club erect a fence inclosing the entire campus and public school grounds, and to maintain the same for three years, the fence to be the property of the public school, and the expense of erecting and maintaining the same to be borne entirely by said Booster Club. The said contract provides that the members of said club shall not make use of the privilege therein granted so as to impair any of the property or grounds belonging to the school district, or in any manner to interfere with or injure the public school or its interests; that said club and its members shall prevent gambling, intoxication, or the drinking of intoxicating liquors, swearing, vulgar or profane language, or other conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or to annoy or molest the citizens residing adjacent to such grounds during the time that such grounds are under their control. The contract further stipulates that the fence to be erected is to be kept in repair by the club during the existence of the privilege granted; that the Royse Booster Club shall execute a bond for the faithful performance of the contract; and that a violation of any of its restrictions or provisions shall terminate the contract.
The plaintiffs' bill charges in substance that the effect of the contract in question is to lease the school grounds therein mentioned to be used for public baseball playing for the amusement of the general public, and for which a fee will be charged, and at which will be gathered all the rough and rowdy element of the surrounding country, making a noisy and troublesome aggregation hard to control, and which by yells and shrieks will disturb the inhabitants residing near the school grounds; that defendants have already permitted baseball games to be played upon said grounds for which an admission fee was charged, and that games have been conducted in noisy and boisterous manner, and the crowds attending same have conducted themselves in a rowdy and obnoxious manner to plaintiffs and others; that they have engaged at all of said games in yelling, shrieking, and other loud and vociferous noises annoying and discomforting to plaintiffs and their families, forcing them to leave their homes to prevent hearing said obnoxious yells and shrieks and noises; that said grounds are dedicated to the use of the public for school purposes only, and that the incorporation of the territory into an independent school...
To continue readingRequest your trial
Hansen v. Independent School District No. 1 In Nez Perce County, Idaho
......C. A.). . . Baseball. games are not nuisances per se. ( Royse Independent. School Dist. et al. v. Reinhardt et al., (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S.W. 1010.). . . ......
Morris v. Vandiver
...... Banc.). . . 1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. . . Board. of trustees of county ...365; A. H. Andrews Co. v. Delight. Special School Dist., 95 Ark. 26, 128 S.W. 361;. First Nat. Bank of Waldron ...Dist. and. County Rep. 660; Grabe v. Lamro Independent Cons. School. Dist. No. 20, Tripp County, 53 S.D. 579, ...(Tex. Civ. App.), 269 S.W. 868; Royse Independent School Dist. v. Reinhardt (Tex. Civ. App.), ......
Beard v. Board of Education of North Summit School Dist.
...... necessary to execute and carry into effect its express. powers. Royse Independent School District v. Reinhardt (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S.W. 1010. The court. is not ......
Love v. City of Dallas
...character as municipal corporations. Thompson v. Elmo Ind. School Dist. (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 868, 870; Royse Ind. School Dist. v. Reinhardt (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S. W. 1010 (writ refused). They are defined as quasi-municipal corporations, and derive their powers by delegation from the ......