Stone v. Kendall
Decision Date | 22 January 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 222.) |
Parties | STONE, Mayor, et al. v. KENDALL et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Sam R. Scott, Special Judge.
Suit by Ben G. Kendall, administrator of the estate of Mrs. R. P. Chamberlain, deceased, and others, against Thomas P. Stone, Mayor, and others. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
John McGlasson and W. L. McConnell, both of Waco, for appellants.
Sleeper, Boynton & Kendall, of Waco, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court, granting a temporary injunction. Ben G. Kendall, administrator of the estate of Mrs. R. P. Chamberlain, deceased, Miss Jessie Cora Chamberlain, and the American National Bank, a corporation, appellees herein, complaint of Thos. P. Stone as mayor, and of the several other commissioners of the city of Waco, constituting its governing body, appellants herein, and allege that appellees are the owners of certain lands in the city of Waco; that such lands contain large and valuable deposits of gravel; that appellees are and have been for a long time prior to the passage of a certain ordinance of said city, hereinafter set out, operating a gravel pit on said land, and in course of said operation excavating, removing, and marketing said gravel; that the chief value of said land consists of the removal and sale of the gravel therefrom, and that such land has little value for any other use or purpose; and that appellees derive a substantial profit and return for marketing such gravel.
Appellees further allege that appellants, as the governing body of said city, have passed a certain ordinance, which omitting formal parts, is as follows:
Appellees further allege that appellants have notified them that they intend to enforce said ordinance, and that they intend to cause the arrest and prosecution of appellees and their agents and employees, if they continue to excavate and remove gravel from said lands.
Appellees attack said ordinance, and contend that the same is illegal, unconstitutional, and void for the following reasons:
Appellees further allege that, if appellants permitted to enforce said ordinance against them, they will be deprived of the use of their property and of the receipt of the profits and income from the same arising out of the operation of said gravel pit; that the value of said property will be practically destroyed; and that they will suffer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vulcan Materials Co. v. City of Tehuacana
...of limestone — are not nuisances per se. City of Dallas v. Newberg, 116 S.W.2d 476, 478-79 (Tex.App. — Dallas, 1938, no writ); Stone v. Kendall, 268 S.W. 759, 761 (Tex.App. — Waco, 1925, no writ). Generally, a lawful business is not a nuisance per instead, "a lawful business or other activi......
-
City of Bakerfield v. Miller
...Corp., 202 Cal. 56, 68, 259 P. 444, 449, 56 A.L.R. 264 quotes, with approval, from a foreign jurisdiction, as follows: 'In Stone v. Kendall (Tex.Civ.App.) 268 S.W. 759, the court said: 'Since the right of a citizen to use his property as he chooses, so long as he harms nobody, is an inheren......
-
Barber v. Texas Department of Transportation
...1921); Gen. Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tex. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 102 S.W.2d 1086, 1090 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1937, writ ref'd); Stone v. Kendall, 268 S.W. 759, 761 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1925, no writ). The Texas Supreme Court has elaborated as The substantial value of property lies in its use......
-
Rosenthal v. City of Dallas, 13858.
...his permit would, in the last analysis, amount to confiscation. Many cases more or less in point could be cited, such as Stone v. Kendall, Tex. Civ.App., 268 S.W. 759; Spahn v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 235 S.W. 513, 19 A.L.R. 1387; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. City of Dallas, 98 Tex. 396......