Case Name: GILLESPIE COUNTY v. FREDERICKSBURG LAND CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-06-03
Citations: 168 S.W. 9
Docket Number: No. 5314
Parties: GILLESPIE COUNTY v. FREDERICKSBURG LAND CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 168
Pages: 9–11

Head Matter:
GILLESPIE COUNTY v. FREDERICKSBURG LAND CO.
(No. 5314.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
June 3, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 22, 1914.)
1. Highways (§ 154 ) — Obstbuctions — Bbidges — “Nuisance.”
The principal street in an unincorporated town ran to a creek, but that end of the street was not used because a hi„h bluff on the opposite bank prevented a crossing there. About 200 feet from the creek a road turned off the street, crossed the creek several hundred yards from the street, and then turned so as to cross a prolongation of the street. A land company constructed a substantial wooden bridge with an easy approach on the unused end of the street connecting with such road, shortening the distance across the creek to the road. Held, that such bridge and approach did not constitute a nuisance and would not be ordered removed at the instance of the commissioners’ court of the county, as its removal would be an injury and not a benefit, and, to create a “nuisance” from the use of property, a material, substantial, and appreciable injury must be occasioned to the person or property of another.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Highways, Cent. Dig. § 418; Dec. Dig. § 154. ]
2. Injunction (S IS )—Grounds of Relief— Substantial Character of Right.
A court of equity will not grant an injunction for the purpose of protecting a technical or unsubstantial right.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. § 13; Dec. Dig. § 13. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Highways (§ 159 ) — Obstructions — Actions—Sufficiency of Evidence.
In a suit by a county to compel the removal of a bridge and approach constructed by a private party, evidence held to show that they did not obstruct the road and street connected thereby.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Highways, Cent. Dig. §§ 430, 431, 435; Dec. Dig. § 159. ]
4. Injunction (§ 12 )—Grounds for Denial of Relief—Lack of Injury.
An injunction will not be granted where no probable injury can arise from the act sought to be restrained.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Injunction, Gent Dig. § 12; Dec. Dig. § 12. ]
Appeal from District Court, Gillespie County; Clarence Martin, Judge.
Suit by Gillespie County against the Fred-ericksburg Land Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
H. C. Geddie, of Kerrville, for appellant. N. T. Stubbs and Alfred P. C. Petsch, both of Fredericksburg, for appellee.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
FLY, C. J.
Appellant sought to compel ap-pellee to remove a dump and bridge out of San Saba»street in the unincorporated town of Fredericksburg, and out of the San Antonio-Austin-Fredericksburg Road, and restrain it from again building such dump and bridge. The court refused to issue the writ of injunction.
San Saba street is the principal one in Fredericksburg, and one end runs into a cul-de-sac on Barron's creek; that end for some distance not being used, as a high bluff on the opposite side of the creek from the town prevents a crossing there. At some 200 or more feet from the bed of the creek, the San Antonio road turns off the street in order to get to a crossing, and after crossing the creek turns so as to cross a prolongation of San Saba street. Appellee built a bridge across the creek and an approach to it on the unused end of San Saba street. The bridge was shown to be a substantial wooden structure with an easy approach which does not in any manner interfere with or obstruct any traveled portion of the road or street, and the bridge and approach have shortened the distance across the creek to the San Antonio road which is intersected by-a prolongation of the street. The street and road are rendered much more convenient by the erection •of the bridge and approach, aud, instead of being a nuisance, is of incalculable benefit to the people of Fredericksburg and Gillespie county. It renders the creek passable in times of high water and shortens the distance for all who travel the road.
To destroy the bridge across the creek would not only be of no benefit to appellánt, but would be of great public injury to the citizens of the county, and a court of equity will not grant an injunction for the purpose of protecting a technical or unsubstantial right. Beach on Inj. § 1067; Joyce on Inj. § 21. In order to create a nuisance from the use of property, a material, substantial, and appreciable injury must be occasioned to the person or property of another. In this case there was no injury, but a positive benefit. An unused and unusable portion of a street was improved, a good bridge put'across the stream, which should have been there long ago, and the distance shortened for those who desire to travel in that direction. "Without money and without price" a substantial improvement has been made for the county, which its commissioners' court desires torn down and destroyed without giving any reason for such desire except that "the construction of a wooden bridge across Baron's creek is impracticable, and this court having no desire to assume any responsibility on the part of the county." The able judge who heard the facts very properly refused the aid of a court of equity to destroy the bridge tendered to the county.
There were no obstructions placed in the street, but merely modern improvements made that will be of lasting benefit to the county and town, and the evidence justified the court in finding that the bridge was not a nuisance but a blessing.
The judgment is affirmed.