Worm v. Wood

• Decision Date: 17 April 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 9348.)
• Citation: 223 S.W. 1016
• Parties: WORM et al. v. WOOD et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

223 S.W. 1016

WORM et al. v. WOOD et al.

(No. 9348.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.

April 17, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; E. A. Hill, Judge.

Suit by John J. Worm and others against Eugene Wood and others, in which George H. Parvin intervened. From an order dissolving a temporary injunction, plaintiffs and intervener appeal. Affirmed.

Burkett, Anderson & Orr, of Eastland, for appellants.

Harrison, Cavin & Key, of Eastland, for appellees.

DUNKLIN, J.

John J. Worm and another citizens of the city of Eastland instituted this suit in the district court of Eastland county against Eugene Wood and others to restrain them from erecting certain buildings on property held by defendants under a five-year lease, and adjoining other property owned by plaintiffs and occupied by them, respectively, as their homes in the city of Eastland. On September 25, 1919, plaintiffs' original petition, which was duly verified, was presented to the judge of the court, who, upon a consideration of the same, ordered it filed and directed the clerk of the court to issue the temporary writ of injunction therein prayed for, restraining the defendants from erecting the buildings. On October 2, 1919, George H. Parvin filed a plea of intervention, in which he joined with plaintiffs in the suit and adopted their pleadings. Defendants' motion to dissolve the temporary writ was sustained, and from that order plaintiffs and intervener have appealed. It was recited in the order of dissolution that the same was made upon an inspection of the plaintiffs' petition, the defendants' answer, and the motion to dissolve.

The contention presented by plaintiffs' petition as a basis for the relief sought was that the buildings which defendants were about to erect would constitute a nuisance which should be abated. Following allegations that plaintiffs owned and had established their respective homes upon their property which adjoined the tract upon which defendants had threatened to erect the objectionable buildings, the petition for the writ contained the following allegations:

"That the defendants have made arrangements to erect, and are now in the process of erecting, as plaintiffs are informed and believed, and so allege the facts to be, 42 shacks, of the size of 14 feet wide by 30 feet long, upon said premises, out of the very commonest class of secondhand lumber, intending to have each shack to contain only two rooms, of 14×15 feet each, without necessary ventilation, and of the very poorest workmanship; that, by placing that number of shacks upon such a small space of ground, same will be crowded together, not more than 10 or 12 feet apart, with practically no yard space, and with wholly insufficient room to allow sanitary living conditions; that said shacks are being constructed wholly of pine timber, with pine foundations, and that, should one of said 42 houses, or shacks, catch fire, it would be practically impossible to prevent all of said shacks burning to the ground, and would in all probability cause some of one or all of plaintiffs' houses, which are immediately adjacent to said premises, to burn down, thereby causing plaintiffs irreparable injury.

"That plaintiffs, at great cost and expense, have erected nice and comfortable dwelling houses adjoining and adjacent to said above-described premises, costing many thousand dollars, and said neighborhood was, until the attempted erection of said shacks by the defendants, a very desirable community in which to live, and if defendants are permitted to proceed with the erection of said shacks as aforesaid, same will greatly depreciate plaintiffs' property and cause plaintiffs and others in the immediate vicinity a great financial loss, which will be impossible to recover while said shacks are permitted to stand in said neighborhood; that plaintiffs are informed and believe, and, so believing, allege the facts to be, that the defendants and each of them are practically insolvent, having no property that plaintiffs are cognizant of out of which these plaintiffs could cause defendants to respond in damages by reason of the erection of said shacks, and causing plaintiffs' property to depreciate in value, and therefore plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and will therefore suffer irreparable injury, unless your honor issues his most gracious writ of injunction, pending the hearing on the merits of this case.

"Plaintiffs further allege that the close crowding of shacks together will cause unhealthful and unsanitary conditions in the immediate vicinity of said premises, and that these plaintiffs, or some of them, are likely to suffer untold injury by reason of such unhealthful conditions over which they will have no control, unless your honor does issue his most gracious writ of injunction in this cause. Plaintiffs further allege that a low insurance rate against fire is a valuable asset to any community or neighborhood, which your plaintiffs' community now enjoys, and by reason of the erection of such a vast amount of closely crowded pine shacks, the fire hazard in said neighborhood will be greatly increased, and that plaintiffs will be thereby greatly damaged financially, and that they will have no adequate remedy at law, by reason of the defendants being unable to respond in damages.

"Plaintiffs further allege that they have been informed and believe, and, so believing, allege, that the defendants are building said shacks for occupation by negroes and Mexicans and a low class of white people, which will greatly injure and practically destroy the social conditions of said neighborhood adjacent to said premises, and thereby these plaintiffs will be irreparably injured in their social as well as property rights, unless your honor does issue his most gracious writ of injunction, restraining defenda...