Storey v. Central Hide & Rendering Co.

Supreme Court of Texas · 1950 · Property

PropertyNuisanceInjunctionsnuisance in factlawful businessinjunctionabatementcomparative injury

Facts

Respondent operated a rendering plant near petitioners' homes outside Tyler, Texas. The business was lawful and not a nuisance per se, but petitioners complained of odors and flies that affected them only occasionally, generally when the wind was in the right direction. The plant was located in an area already developing industrially and, when established, was the only available site with the necessary electrical, water, and gas facilities; moving it would cost about $30,000 and the injunction would put respondent out of business. The evidence also showed respondent had modernized the plant, followed recognized sanitary practices, served countywide waste-disposal and sanitation needs, and was the only rendering plant in the county serving about 75,000 people.

Issue

When a lawful business is found to be a nuisance in fact, is a permanent injunction abating the business available as a matter of right? Or must the court balance the equities and consider the injury to the defendant and the public, leaving plaintiffs to damages if the comparative injury weighs against an injunction?

Rule

A lawful business that is not a nuisance per se may become a nuisance in fact because of the place or manner of operation, but abatement by injunction is not automatic upon proof of nuisance. In deciding whether to enjoin such a business, the court should apply the comparative injury or balancing of equities doctrine by weighing the injury to the complainant against the injury to the defendant and the public if an injunction issues. If the complainant's injury is slight in comparison, equitable relief may be denied and the complainant left to an action for damages.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In the outskirts of Lubbock, Prairie Renewal Works operates a lawful compost-processing facility next to several small acreages owned by Elena Ruiz and her neighbors. The neighbors prove that drifting odors and insects from the facility periodically interfere with outdoor use of their property, and the trial judge finds a nuisance in fact.

Under the governing rule, are Elena and the other neighbors entitled to a permanent injunction shutting down the facility as a matter of right?

Explanation. The majority held that proof of a nuisance in fact does not make abatement automatic. For a lawful business that is not a nuisance per se, injunction remains an equitable remedy, and the court should apply comparative injury or balancing of equities. That requires weighing the complainants' harm against the injury an injunction would cause the defendant and the public.