Von Hatzfeld v. Neece
Decision Date | 26 June 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 9462.) |
Citation | 223 S.W. 1034 |
Parties | VON HATZFELD v. NEECE et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Palo Pinto County; J. B. Keith, Judge.
Suit by C. T. Neece and others against Chas. Von Hatzfeld. From an order refusing to wholly vacate temporary writ of injunction, defendant appeals. Judgment reversed, and writ vacated and set aside.
Penix, Miller, Perkins & Dean, of Mineral Wells, for appellant.
Gross, Gross & Zivley, of Mineral Wells, for appellees.
This appeal is from an order of the district court of Palo Pinto county refusing to wholly vacate a temporary writ of injunction theretofore issued upon the petition of the appellees in this case. The material allegations of the appellees' petition, which form the basis of the temporary writ that had been issued, are as follows:
Upon a motion to dissolve, the court overruled appellant's demurrer to the petition, and heard evidence offered by the plaintiffs in support of their allegations, and dissolved the writ in so far as it restrained the defendant from the erection of the building described in the petition, but otherwise continued the operation of the temporary writ restraining the defendant from using the house and premises as a grocery store until a final hearing of the cause upon its merits.
Complaint here is made both of the action of the court in overruling the defendant's demurrer to the petition and in further restraining him from the use of the premises in conducting the business of a grocer as designed by him, and we have concluded that both complaints are well founded.
The same authority, in section 774 of the same volume, says:
"To justify a court of equity in enjoining a nuisance of the class under consideration, the person aggrieved must show to the court some actual substantial damage, and not merely a remote, contingent, or prospective injury."
It must be conceded, and appellees do concede, that the erection of the building and the business proposed to be done by the appellant is not a nuisance per se, that is, they do not inherently and necessarily amount to that character of nuisance which a court of equity will at once and as a matter of law enjoin. In a note to the case of Oehler v. Levy, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1025, it is said:
"The rule that, where the `thing sought to be restrained is not unavoidably and in itself noxious, but only something which may, according to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Street v. Marshall
... ... 90; Shamburger v ... Scheurrer, 198 S.W. 1069; Haynes v. Hedrick, ... 223 S.W. 550; Worm v. Wood, 223 S.W. 1016; Von ... Hatzfeld v. Neece. 223 S.W. 1034; Miller v ... Dickinson, 236 S.W. 1014. (3) If the complainant's ... right is doubtful, or the thing which it is sought ... ...
-
Marshall v. City of Dallas
...113 S. W. 996; Robinson v. Dale, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 277, 131 S. W. 309; Worm v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 1017; Von Hatzfeld v. Neece (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 1034; Dickson v. Barr (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. 446. If no damages are recoverable by appellants, then, of course, no right ......
-
City of Abilene v. Reed
...appellees would not be entitled to an injunction to prevent any apprehensive future injury, citing such cases as Von Hatzfeld v. Neece et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 1034; Dunn et al. v. City of Austin et al., 77 Tex. 139, 11 S. W. 1125. But the nature of this action is to enjoin the cit......
-
Dickson v. Barr
...a complaining party may fear will inflict inconvenience or injury. See 14 R. C. L. p. 354, par. 57; 29 Cyc. p. 1222, par. 2; Von Hatzfeld v. Neece, 223 S. W. 1034; Shamburger v. Scheurrer, 198 S. W. 1069; City of Electra v. Cross, 225 S. W. 795. In the paragraph of Cyc. cited, it is said, a......