Court Opinion

ID: 9829160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:02:15.11729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.830349
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant especially .emphasizes the contention that appellees’ petition was bad on general demurrer, in that on its face it shows that the nuisance complained of is, as a matter of law, temporary, and that only damages for a permanent nuisance is claimed. While the petition 'is not as specific in the respect mentioned as is desirable, yet there is a clear statement of the facts which show a grievous nuisance and which, therefore, at all events, would entitle the plaintiffs to damages, and, in addition to the prayer for damages as for a permanent injury, there was also a prayer for such further relief as the court might find the plaintiffs entitled to, under the fáets proven. The point now urged was not presented to the court below by any special exception, so that we were of opinion that the petition, when construed in the light of the allegations of appellant’s answer, and of the special charges requested by appellant, and in the absence of any specific objection to the evidence tending to show that the dumping ground was to be continuously used, was sufficient on general demurrer and would support the verdict and judgment in appellees’ favor. It has been frequently held that mere vagueness or uncertainty in a pleading, or a merely defective statement in a cause of action, is not available on general, demurrer. See Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. Woodward, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 496, 45 S. W. 185; Yoe v. Montgomery, 68 Tex. 338, 4 S. W. 622; Butt v. Colbert, 24 Tex. 355.
The motion for rehearing will accordingly be overruled.