Court Opinion

ID: 9834008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:13:02.558127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:10.611933
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the original opinion in this cause, among other conclusions, we announced the following:
“The evidence shows that the injury to the property of appellees was of a general or community rather than of a specific nature; that is to say, it appeared that other property in the neighborhood was injured in like manner and from the same cause, but was damaged in varying degrees, depending upon proximity to the fire station.”
The correctness of this conclusion is challenged by appellees. In their motion for rehearing they say:
“The court erred in holding and stating that the damage sued for by the appellees was of a general or community nature rather than of a special nature, and that the -facts in the case show that other property in the neighborhood was damaged in the same manner and from the same cause as assigned by the appellees, because there is no testimony of any nature whatever to the effect that any other property sustained any damage.”
In the statement of facts, we find the testimony of J. Edgar Finley, formerly a land agent of the city of Dallas, well acquainted with the property, and at one time an agent *139for its sale, Laving testified as to its value both before and after the erection of the fire station, said:
“I believe that the property in the whole neighborhood would be affected somewhat, in the same manner, but not in the same degree, as Mr. Lawler’s lot, because it adjoins the side of the fire station. Property in the same neighborhood will be affected in the same manner, but not in the same degree; Mr. Lawler being situated on the adjoining lot to be affected to a , much greater degree than the other property in the neighborhood.”
The conclusion, the correctness of which is challenged by appellees, was in our opinion justified by the evidence just recited, but aside from this it appears that the claim of appellees relates alone to the liability of ap.pellant for depreciation in the market value of their property caused by the mere erection and operation of a fire station. There was no contention that a nuisance was created by the erection and operation of the fire station, nor was there any complaint of negligence on the part of the city in the location, erection, or operation of same, the claim being for depreciation in market value caused solely and alone by the erection and operation of'the fire station. The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the injury to the property, if any, was a general or community, rather than of a special, nature, and just such as was suffered by other property in the neighborhood, due to the undesirability of being near the fire station.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.