## Facts

- The Animal Defense League, a Texas charitable corporation, operated an animal shelter near San Antonio and decided to relocate due to increasing urbanization.
- The League planned to build and operate a new shelter and kennels on a 25-acre tract north of San Antonio’s city limits and east of U.S. Highway 81.
- The shelter’s operations included housing stray dogs and cats until adoption and euthanizing animals that were diseased or injured beyond recovery.
- Nearby landowners sued to enjoin construction and operation, alleging a nuisance from barking, stray animals, odors, insects, and reduced property values.
- A jury found the proposed operation would materially annoy or disturb plaintiffs through barking and would subject them to stray dogs and cats.
- The jury did not find that odors, insects/flies, or property-value diminution were sufficiently shown.
- The jury also found the shelter served public welfare and that this public welfare was not outweighed by private inconvenience.
- The trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the League and denied a permanent injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether a planned animal shelter and kennels should be enjoined as a nuisance where the operation would materially annoy nearby landowners but also serves a substantial charitable and public welfare purpose.
2. Whether equity may deny injunctive relief despite jury findings of material annoyance when the balance of equities favors continued construction and operation.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict and refusal to grant a permanent injunction.
- The court held that, on the record presented, the public welfare value of the League’s proposed shelter outweighed the private annoyance found by the jury.
- The court treated the proposed location and operation as not wholly inappropriate for the area and the private harms as insufficiently disproportionate to justify injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Injunction in nuisance cases is an equitable remedy; courts consider the public interest and the relative hardship to the parties, not only the existence of annoyance.
- When an activity serves a recognized public need, courts may deny injunctive relief absent a showing that the private injury is overwhelming or disproportionate.
- Appropriateness of location and reasonableness of the proposed use in light of surrounding conditions are central to determining whether equity should restrain the use.
- Jury findings of annoyance may inform, but do not necessarily control, the court’s decision on whether to grant or deny equitable relief.

## Conclusion

The court upheld denial of an injunction against the Animal Defense League’s proposed shelter, concluding that equity required weighing public welfare benefits against private inconvenience and that the harms shown did not justify stopping a charitable facility at a location deemed reasonably chosen.


Georg v. Animal Def. League, 231 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Civ. App. 1950)