Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Thompson

Decision Date13 December 1911
Citation142 S.W. 1000
PartiesSOUTHWESTERN TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CO. v. THOMPSON et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Bell County; John D. Robinson, Judge.

Action by B. F. Thompson and others against the Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. P. Wozencraft and Scott, Sanford & Ross, for appellant. Hair & Woodward, for appellees.

KEY, C. J.

J. R. Spencer bought and owned a building on what was known as the government lot in the city of Temple; the building being 28 feet wide and 90 feet long by inside measurement, and being about 30 feet in height. He desired to move the building to another lot owned by him, and he employed B. F. Thompson to move it for him. There was a city ordinance in force, requiring any one desiring to remove any building from one place to another over any public street or ground to first get permission from the street and alley committee before using such public street or ground for that purpose. The street and alley committee of the city of Temple granted permission to move the building in question "from Adams avenue and Main street to destination on East Adams avenue between Twelfth and Fourteenth streets. Your route to be direct on East Adams avenue. It is understood and agreed that you are to assume all damage to public or private property caused by you in the moving of this building, and to notify all those having wires in sufficient time to enable them to have a lineman on the ground to protect their wires. You are to use due diligence to reach destination after pulling building on street." This document was issued January 4, 1909, and Thompson began work with the view of moving the building. On September 16, 1899, the Secretary of the State of Texas issued to the Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Company a permit to do business in the state, and prior to 1909 that company had established a telephone system in the city of Temple, and had placed some of its poles, cables, and wires on and along Adams avenue, the cables and wires being about 25 feet from the ground; so that the house in question, while it remained intact, could not be moved along that street without breaking the telephone wires and interfering with the company's business and the public's use of its telephone, unless the wires were temporarily disconnected from the poles and raised some five or six feet higher. The record shows that an effort was made to get the agent and manager of the Telephone Company in Temple to have the wires raised while the house was being moved; but the parties failed to reach a satisfactory agreement, and on January 30, 1909, the Telegraph & Telephone Company filed a suit against both Thompson and Spencer, seeking to have them temporarily and perpetually enjoined from interfering with its wires, poles, cables, etc. A temporary injunction was issued and served upon the defendants, who thereafter filed answers, which contained a general demurrer and denial and plea in reconvention for damages, upon the ground that the injunction was wrongfully issued, and that as a result thereof each defendant had sustained certain pecuniary injuries. On September 27, 1910, the case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered dissolving the temporary injunction and awarding to the defendant Thompson on his cross-action recovery for $50 for loss of time, and to defendant Spencer on his cross-action $50 for money expended in having the roof of the building cut off; $50 spent for material and $250 for injuries resulting to the house on account of having the top or roof cut off and being moved in that condition; and the plaintiff has brought the case to this court and seeks to have the judgment reversed upon numerous...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Oglesby v. Potts
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 1931
    ...v. Aldridge, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 230, 110 S. W. 560; Daniel v. De Ortiz (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S. W. 486; Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 142 S. W. 1000; Pennington v. Fleming (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 303; Blewett v. Richardson Ind. School Dist. et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) ......
  • L. D. Powell Co. v. Lee
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1923
    ...Spalding v. Aldridge, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 230, 110 S. W. 560; Daniel v. De Oritz (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S. W. 486; Telegraph & Tel. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 142 S. W. 1000; Pennington v. Fleming (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 303; Blewett v. Richardson Ind. School Dist. (Tex. Civ. App.) 230......
  • Hemphill v. Romano
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 19, 1921
    ...of fact or law by the court, if a state of facts appeared which will support the judgment rendered, it must be affirmed. S. W. T. & T. Co. v. Thompson, 142 S. W. 1000; Kittrell v. Irwin, 149 S. W. Without attempting to recapitulate it here, it is deemed sufficient to say that, while there w......

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