Court Opinion

ID: 9831680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:17:04.173446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.982308
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing and to Certify.
[3] In Burditt v. Swenson, 17 Tex. 489, 67 Am. Dec. 665, it was said:
“To constitute a nuisance, it is not necessary that the annoyance should be of a character to endanger health; it is sufficient if it occasions that which is offensive to the senses, and .which renders the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. 9 Paige, 576; 9 Georgia, 425, 428; 9 Iredell, 244. Even that which does but. cause a well-founded apprehension of danger may be a nuisance.”
As illustrating what might be regarded as a nuisance because it causes “a well-founded apprehension of danger” Justice Wheeler quoted from Cheatham v. Shearon, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 213, 55 Am. Dec. 734, whero it was held that the erection of a powder magazine in a populous párt of the city and keeping large quantities of gunpowder stored therein is a nuisance per se.
In Comminge v. Stevenson, 76 Tex. 642, 13 S. W. 556, the court upheld a finding that a powder magazine situate three or four hundred feet from the plaintiff’s residence was a nuisance, saying:
“We think the magazine and its contents afforded sufficient ground for plaintiff’s apprehension and alarm, and that it satisfactorily appears from the evidence that the magazine is a ‘thing that worked hurt, inconvenience, and damage’ to plaintiff in both his person and property, in violation of his right to enjoy his property free from such hurt, inconvenience, and damage. Rhodes v. Dunbar, 57 Pa. St. 290; 4 Wait’s Act. and Def. 731, 732, 749, 773.”
The petition in the 'present action avers that the construction of the dam was a hurt, annoyance, and detriment to the plaintiff and his family, and that they have lived in continual fear of their lives and property, especially after the dam sprung a leak, and there is even now a leakage and seepage which may cause the dam to break, and that this had depreciated the value of plaintiff’s land in the sum of $1,000.
The demurrer admitted the truth of these allegations, and in our opinion the authorities cited abundantly support the conclusion that the petition stated a cause of action in damages for the erection of a nuisance.
Appellant assumes that our ruling was that the dam and its impounded water constitutes a nuisance per se, but it is not to be so construed. Our discussion may convey that impression, but it was merely intended to show that the dam and impounded water was not a.fanciful fear but sufficient to “cause a well-founded apprehension of danger” and a hurt, annoyance, and damage to the plaintiff.
Appellee requests that the question be certified to the Supreme Court upon two grounds, viz.: First. On account of its general public importance; second. Because of alleged conflict.
We are not unmindful of the importance of, the question but think the past decisions of the Supreme Court clearly establish a right of action in the plaintiff’s favor upon the-allegations of his petition, and there is therefore no occasion to certify upon the first ground.
[4] As to the second ground we think there is no conflict. Furthermore, in case of a conflict of decision in an appeal from the county court the judgment of this court is no longer final. Chapter 56, Acts 38th Leg. (Reg. Sess) p. 110. Hence the Supreme Court has jurisdiction upon application for writ of error. Article 1521, R. S. or Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918. If we err in our view that there is no conflict, (the Supreme Court will correct the same upon writ of error.
Both motions are overruled.