Sigel v. Buccaneer Hotel Co.
Decision Date | 27 March 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 9505.,9505. |
Citation | 40 S.W.2d 168 |
Parties | SIGEL v. BUCCANEER HOTEL CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; C. G. Dibrell, Judge.
Action by Louis Sigel against the Buccaneer Hotel Company and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Albert R. Young, of Houston, for appellant.
Frank S. Anderson and McDonald & Wayman, all of Galveston, for appellees Buccaneer Hotel Co. and others.
Bryan F. Williams, of Galveston, for appellees City and others.
This is a suit by appellant against the appellees for a mandatory injunction and, in the alternative, for damages for alleged unlawful obstruction and closing by appellees of a portion of a public street of the city of Galveston upon which appellant is an abutting property onwer. The suit is brought against the Buccaneer Hotel, a corporation, W. L. Moody, Jr., the city of Galveston, and the mayor and members of the board of commissioners of said city. After naming the defendants and describing the portion of the street alleged to be unlawfully obstructed and closed, and plaintiff's abutting property, the petition alleges, in substance: That on or about the 15th day of September, 1927, the city of Galveston, acting by and through its board of commissioners, passed an ordinance closing that portion of the street before described, and entered into a contract with the defendant W. L. Moody, Jr., giving him the right to occupy and use said portion of the street by erecting thereon a portion of a hotel building to cost approximately $300,000, such right to the use and occupancy of the street to continue as long as the hotel provided for in the ordinance should be maintained by W. L. Moody, Jr., his successors or assigns.
The defendants Buccaneer Hotel Company and W. L. Moody, Jr., answered by general demurrer, special exceptions, and specially pleaded that, in the construction of the hotel, they had complied with the provisions of the ordinance of the city of Galveston set out in plaintiff's petition, and that this ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's control of its streets and gave them authority for obstructing the street in the manner and to the extent stated in plaintiff's petition, and plaintiff had full knowledge that a portion of the building was being constructed in the street and without objection he permitted them to expend large sums of money in its construction. They further specially pleaded: "That in or about the year 1928, defendant Buccaneer Hotel Company commenced the construction of a hotel building on the premises so owned by it, and that a portion of said building occupied a part of the portion of said Avenue Q closed by said ordinance; that defendant Buccaneer Hotel Company expended approximately Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ($750,000.00) Dollars in the construction of said building and that the plaintiff had full knowledge of and assented to the placing of a portion of said hotel building on the part of Avenue Q so closed by said ordinance; that the plaintiff willfully and maliciously assented to the erection of said hotel building and raised no objection thereto during the construction thereof, well knowing that said defendant was expending a large sum of money in the erection of said improvements, and that if it was required to remove the portion of said building occupying the closed part of Avenue Q, after the same had been completed, that the damage and injury to said defendant, Buccaneer Hotel Company, would be enormous; that on account of the large sum of money involved in the construction of said building and the damage and injury to defendant, Buccaneer Hotel Company in the event it should be required to remove the portion thereof occupying the closed part of said Avenue Q, it was the duty of plaintiff to advise said defendant, Buccaneer Hotel Company, of his objections thereof, and by reason of his failure to so act, and of the assent of the plaintiff to the erection of said building and occupancy of said closed portion of Avenue Q, and of his said willful and malicious conduct, the plaintiff is estopped from maintaining this suit for injunctive relief, or for damages."
The defendants city of Galveston and the mayor and members of the board of commissioners of the city answered by general demurrer and special exceptions to plaintiff's petition, and by special pleas, the nature of which need not be here stated.
They also, by cross-action, asked judgment over against the defendant W. L. Moody, Jr., for any damage or costs that might be adjudged against them.
The trial in the court below without a jury resulted in a judgment in favor of all of the defendants.
The ordinance referred to and made a part of plaintiff's petition is as follows:
At the request of appellant, the trial court filed conclusions of fact and law which contain the following findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Acker
...to the testimony. Tillman v. Fletcher, 78 Tex. 673, 15 S.W. 161; McBride v. Puckett, Tex.Civ.App., 66 S.W. 242; Sigel v. Buccaneer Hotel Co., Tex. Civ.App., 40 S.W.2d 168, writ In appellants' brief, complaint seems to be made that plaintiffs' petition contained no separate counts presenting......
-
Burrow v. Davis, 5945
...of Seattle, 149 Wash. 197, 270 P. 431; Kahn v. City of Houston, 121 Tex. 293, 48 S.W.2d 595; 13 R.C.L. page 75; Sigel v. Buccaneer Hotel Co., Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 168.' That case has since been many times cited with approval. In the case at bar the Street and Avenue about which appellant......
-
Greenfeld v. San Jacinto Ins. Co.
...intendment of the pleader must be indulged. Texas Wine & Liquor Co. v. Willis, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 695; Sigel v. Buccaneer Hotel Co., Civ.App., 40 S.W.2d 168, writ ref.; Anderson v. First National Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W. 836, error dis.; Roberts v. Anthony, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W. ......
-
Gambrell v. Chalk Hill Theatre Co.
...by the parties which were rendered before the passage of Art. 4646a. Art. 4646a was first cited by our courts in Sigel v. Buccaneer Hotel Co., Tex.Civ. App., 40 S.W.2d 168, writ refused. Appellant in that case was an abutting owner. He sought a mandatory injunction against the Hotel and the......