Court Opinion

ID: 9829638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:29:55.264929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.826312
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
In the case of Aycock v. San Antonio Brewing Association, 63 Southwestern Reporter, 963, the identical points involved in this suit were passed upon by this court, and it was held that “the use of the streets being one authorized by law, and consistent with the purposes for which streets exist, plaintiffs were not entitled to have such use restrained by injunction, or declared a nuisance.” The Supreme Court refused a writ, in the case, and must necessarily have been of the opinion that the language above quoted was the law. The street railway against-which an injunction was sought in that case is the one against which it is sought in this case.
It is immaterial whether appellee has any authority to exercise the power of eminent domain or not. If it had all the power with which it is possible to invest any railroad corporation it could not condemn a street, but must enterr upon it through the permission of the city that exercises exclusive control over it. If in doing this it has damaged appellant in a manner not common to all the property holders along the street, it must respond in damages for so doing, but it can not be restrained from a use of the street sanctioned by the Legislature of the State and permitted by the city council of the city of San Antonio. The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.