Seastrunk Rendering Co. v. Hollingsworth

Decision Date26 January 1944
Docket NumberNo. 9420.,9420.
PartiesSEASTRUNK RENDERING CO., Limited, et al. v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Bell County; Wesley Dice, Judge.

Suit by Joe Hollingsworth and others against Seastrunk Rendering Company, Limited, and others, to abate and enjoin continuance of nuisances. From a judgment, defendants appeal.

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.

Henry Taylor, of Temple, and W. L. Eason, of Waco, for appellants.

Lee Curtis and Arthur O'Connor, both of Belton, for appellees.

McCLENDON, Chief Justice.

The purposes of this suit were: (1) To abate and enjoin continuance of nuisances consisting (a) of a plant for rendering garbage and bodies of dead animals to extract grease therefrom, and (b) of large hog pens in connection therewith; and (2) to enjoin the manner in which the plant and pens were operated. The suit was filed May 31, 1943, and tried July 29-Aug. 1, 1943, to the court. The plant was located about half way between Temple and Belton on U. S. Highway 81, at a rural community called Midway. The materials from which grease was rendered consisted in the main of kitchen garbage from Camp Hood and North Camp, two large army camps located respectively 23 miles west and 53 miles northwest of Midway. This material amounted to about 80 tons per day. Other material used was obtained from hospitals and an abattoir in Temple, and bodies of dead animals collected within a 35-mile radius of Midway. Grease was also purchased from collectors thereof from housewives in the vicinity. This item, however, was inconsequential. The plant was located upon a tract of about 15 acres abutting on the south side of Highway 81, and about 100 feet from the Highway. Successful plaintiffs (appellees here) were owners severally of small tracts upon which they resided, situated across the highway to the north or northwest of the plant. Defendants (appellants here) were Seastrunk Rendering Company, Ltd. (a limited partnership of which J. W. Seastrunk and W. M. Romig were its general partners), and its members. In the summer of 1942, defendants had obtained a contract to dispose of all kitchen garbage at these camps, and at once began construction of the plant, which was sufficiently completed to begin operations in the fall of that year. The garbage was hauled to the plant in large metal containers uncovered except by canvas, which was concededly ineffective in windy weather. The rendering process was either in a dry cooker or wet cooker. In the former meat and bone portions of the garbage and the bodies of animals were cooked. This cooker consisted of a large horizontal double cylinder. The material was dumped into the inner cylinder, which was then closed and steam was then injected into the outer (enclosing) cylinder, and the contents of the inner cylinder was thus subject to a high temperature under high pressure for several hours. Upon completion of the cooking process, the contents was then dumped into an open strainer, thus allowing a large amount of the grease to drain off. Grease from the residue was then extracted by means of a hydraulic press, similar to those used in cotton seed oil mills. What still remained, which was in the form of "cake", was ground, sacked and sold for feed. The rest of the garbage was rendered in the wet cookers, of which there were six. In these the steam was applied directly to the garbage, the cooking being also under high pressure. The steam, laden with the odors from the cooking garbage, eventually escaped (under water) through a pipe which terminated in an open tank. The residue from the wet cookers had been disposed of in part by dumping on the back part of the 15 acres, in part by feeding it to the hogs, and in part by spreading on a barley field to the south of the 15 acres. Shortly before the trial defendants had constructed a dehydrating apparatus, to dehydrate the residue from the wet cookers; which they expected to grind and sack for feed as in the case of the dry cooker residuum. They were also contemplating installing an apparatus designed to eliminate the odors from the steam and cookers through consumption in the furnaces supplying heat for the cookers. The hog pens had a capacity of about 2500 head, and at times they were filled to capacity. At the time of the trial there were only about 300 head and about the same number of pigs. Seastrunk testified that he had quit buying hogs, and expected to discontinue the pens as soon as the pigs were large enough to market. A small, unscreened shed had been constructed to the rear of the plant, in which to place the bodies of dead animals until they were hoisted into the skinning room, where they were skinned, the offal removed, and they were cut up and deposited in the dry cooker along with other meat and bone substances. At times bodies were deposited on the ground near the pens. A detailed description of the extremely unsanitary conditions of the plant and pens is unnecessary. The evidence upon this point was overwhelming. In fact, that conditions were "very bad" was admitted by Seastrunk and Romig. Nor is it necessary to detail the injuries inflicted upon each of the appellees in the use and enjoyment of their homes resulting from the obnoxious and nauseating odors and the excessive number of flies emanating from the plant, pens and other portions of the premises. The trial court set forth these conditions and results in his judgment, and found, specifically, that they could each be remedied—findings abundantly supported by the evidence, and not challenged in this court.

The decree perpetually enjoined defendants from:

"(1) Placing uncooked bodies of dead animals or parts thereof, in which decomposition has begun, at or in said rendering plant or at any place on defendants' premises at Midway between Belton and Temple within 300 yards of the public highway designated as U. S. Highway #81, except directly into then operating cookers at said plant or into a well inclosed, screened room;

"(2) Operating defendants' rendering plant at Midway between Belton and Temple after September 10, 1943, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Lynch v. Uhlenhopp
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • September 18, 1956
    ...alleged to be violated should be clearly expressed * * *.' A sound expression of the rule is found in Seastrunk Rendering Co. v. Hollingsworth, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 1014, 1016, 1017: 'To warrant a decree of injunction, enforceable through contempt proceedings, the acts commanded or rest......
  • Gulf Oil Corp. v. Walton
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1958
    ...Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W. 822; Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578, 86 S.W. 733, 70 L.R.A. 964; Seastrunk Rendering Co. v. Hollingsworth, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 1014. For the above reasons, appellant's points are sustained. The judgment of the trial court is accordingly reversed......
  • Angelina Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Irwin, 12731
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 3, 1955
    ...to do, or refrain from doing, in order to abate the nuisance, and so escape being liable as for contempt. Seastrunk Rendering Co. v. Hollingsworth, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 1014; Ft. Worth Acid Works v. City of Ft. Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W. 822, affirmed, Tex.Com.App., 259 S.W. 919; Roy......
  • Hice v. Cole
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 1956
    ...Worth Acid Works v. City of Fort Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W. 822, affirmed in Tex.Com.App., 259 S.W. 919; Seastrunk Rendering Co. v. Hollingsworth, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 1014. We do not agree with appellant's contention, presented under his fourth point, that by causing a copy of the j......

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