Garland Grain Co. v. D-C Home Owners Improv. Asso. - 393 S.W.2d 635 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965)

Rule:

According to the doctrine of "comparative injury" or "balancing of equities" the court will consider the injury which may result to the defendant and the public by granting the injunction as well as the injury to be sustained by the complainant if the writ be denied. If the court finds that the injury to the complainant is slight in comparison to the injury caused the defendant and the public by enjoining the nuisance, relief will ordinarily be refused. It has been pointed out that the cases in which a nuisance is permitted to exist under this doctrine are based on the stern rule of necessity rather than on the right of the author of the nuisance to work a hurt, or injury to his neighbor. The necessity of others may compel the injured party to seek relief by way of an action at law for damages rather than by a suit in equity to abate the nuisance.

Facts:

This was a suit for a mandatory injunction to abate a nuisance. The suit was brought by appellees-plaintiffs, an association of home owners and land owners known as the D-C Home Owners Improvement Association, against Garland Grain Company et al., hereinafter referred to as appellant-defendants. The alleged nuisance consisted of feed lots operated by appellant where a large number of cattle was fed and fattened and ultimately sold at various meat packers throughout the state and elsewhere. The feed lots, owned by appellants, were located on a tract of land owned by the defendants. As a result of the concentration of the cattle, it was admitted that at times there was as much as thirty tons of manure on the ground in the lots and that collected and stacked on the outside. Plaintiffs admitted that defendants were not negligent in any respect in the operation of the business. But plaintiffs alleged that the feed lots constitute a nuisance because of the obnoxious odor, noise, flies and birds emanating from the lots which are such as to substantially interfere with the comfort and enjoyment of their property and homes. They further alleged that as a result of the natural and normal drainage of defendants' land, the water bordering on three sides of the defendants' property, was polluted by foul, germ-carrying bacteria-laden manure, creating a public and private nuisance. The jury found that the odor caused by the feed lot constituted a nuisance that was likely to continue into the future. Also, the feed lot polluted a nearby stream, but found that did not constitute a nuisance. The trial court entered a permanent injunction against defendant. The latter appealed. 

Issue:

Was the permanent injunction entered by the trial court against the defendant to abate nuisance, correct?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court reversed the judgment and dissolved the injunction against defendant. The court ruled that the balance of equities weighed against the abatement of defendant's business, which the court found was beneficial to the community. The court also found that defendant's business was suited to the area. The court found that the abatement of defendant's business was improperly harsh. The court also held that plaintiffs themselves maintained cattle that polluted the stream. Thus, the court ruled that plaintiffs should have brought an action at law for damages to recover for injuries caused by the feed lot.