Legal Opinion

Seastrunk Rendering Co. v. Hollingsworth

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 26, 1944No. 9420PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McClendon, chief justice.

The purposes of this suit were: (1) To abate and enjoin continuance of nuisances consisting (a) of a plant for rendering garbage and bodies of dead animals to extract grease therefrom, and (b) of large hog pens in connection therewith; and (2) to enjoin the manner in which the plant and pens were operated. The suit was filed May 31, 1943, and tried July 29-Aug. 1, 1943, to the court. The plant was located about half way between Temple and Belton on U. S. Highway 81, at a rural community called Midway. The materials from which grease was rendered consisted in the main…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fort Worth Acid Works v. City of Fort WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  2. Ballentine v. WebbMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Borden Co. v. Local No. 133 of International Brotherhood of TeamstersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
  4. City of Fort Worth v. Fort Worth Acid Works Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1924
  5. Royalty v. StrangeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lynch v. UhlenhoppSupreme Court of Iowa · 1956
  2. Gulf Oil Corporation v. WaltonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1958
  3. Angelina Hardwood Lumber Company v. IrwinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
  4. Hice v. ColeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956
  5. Lynch v. UhlenhoppSupreme Court of Iowa · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API