*1 spinal injury, there was a could determine fracture, compression brain

including a pain re- cussion, damage and residual nerve His condition accident. sulting of a permanent, a result was described as him “about “major injury”, making and as was half the he before.” There man was per disability cent. evidence his was about 30 injury Appellant’s conceded medical witness disability, resulting minimized say condition. are unable to the verdict points was been excessive. Other have considered are overruled. and'

Affirmed. Jr., BOURLAND, Appellant,

Claude al., CITY OF SAN ANTONIO et Appellees. Appeals Court of Civil of Texas. San Antonio. April 19, 1961. Rehearing Denied June Burket, Antonio, Maxwell San

lant. Cadena, City Atty.,

Carlos C. Crawford Reeder, City Atty., B. Asst. San appellees. BARROW, Justice. by appellant, a suit Claude Bour-

land, Jr., against appellees, City of San Antonio, Lynn Andrews, City Manager, Sharrer, Clyde Aviation, Director of Airport, Antonio International damages taking damag- of his and business. Also injunction to seeking restrain defendants, in capacities, their official permitting or the use directing at San An- *2 661 persons tak- It is Airport well settled that “All aircraft International tonio direction, in northwesterly and have or claim a direct who interest in the a ing off in suit, object subject northwesterly direction. matter and the and a of landing from appel- necessarily whose interests denied will be hearing, court affected the Upon a by any injunction, judgment may that be rendered petition for a lant’s therein, proper are not only order. that are neces appeal is from and this sary indispensable or parties plaintiff or de City of San that the alleged Appellant Parties, fendant.” Tex.Jur., 9, p. 32 § operates the Interna- and Antonio owns “Nonjoinder parties necessary a of to de part the of northern Airport in the tional termination of the main issue is fundamen of land a tract City. he owns That requires tal and either a dismissal of the acres, the side of on west taining 25.6 suit or a stay they proceedings of until can family Avenue, his he and which Pedro brought be in. court The is au without place and a homestead use as occupy and thority pass to on the merits or decide to by is horse trainer That he business. .a of any question may which affect the rights training as a ground. land uses the trade and necessary of such parties.” Tex.Jur., 32 off landing on and taking in aircraft That Parties, 88,p. fly runway from the endangering thus his low over undisputed shows evidence that family and his the members the of of lives parties operate these the aircraft under con He further business. his ruining tract with City the of San which part his of City designated has that the airport. owns the flights to and from zone, approach and clear zone land as airport are by the controlled a Federal any buildings the erection forbids of which agency operates agency. Such the tower any com- so thereon, has done without and by and which all taking and off land by designa- That such him. pensation to operations controlled, appellees are and land, City “con- the has use his tion and of power authority have no or to control them. appropriated to and it his verted” Under such circumstances we are the of compensation. public without use a- opinion injunction against appellees that an joinder without the these parties of would pleas alia, by in inter Appellees answered useless, be futile and ineffectual. More said abatement, using the aircraft that over, opinion parties of the we are the that by belong operated and are cer- runway to rights, have contract which be would af companies airline commercial named tain by injunction, an such and fected there Government, un- by United States and the necessary parties fore are without whose City, with the and that said der contract presence injunction the is unauthorized. necessary indispen- proper, and parties are alleged that parties. They further sable ap The evidence further shows that parties with whom directed to an order 3,000 pellant’s home is about feet contracted,' City prohibiting has runway complained of, and end that them, or by either of of said use if the center line thereof were extended it useless, them, be vain would pass about feet to the side ap would 430 appellees said contracts under reason that home, and pellant’s while it admitted that authority capa- power, or not have do occasionally fly appellant’s planes do over effectively prohibit bility such use. to necessary not property, it is for them to do only appel- taking off landing concerned with in or from said are here so run temporary injunction, way. regulations the rules application for That under lant’s matters, opinion regard appellant’s to none express no such governing path damages compensa- is within the glide action for or land approaching tion, proper, necessary, runway. Under or as to the or said such circumstances the dispensable parties not trial court did abuse discretion in to such action. injunction, which such

refusing grant to com- impair aircraft hamper and would City. merce and from the to *3 opinion that further of areWe amount to complained if the actions appel or destruction taking, damaging Ar meaning of within the Constitution, 1, 17, ticle of the State adequate appellant has an Ann.St., Vernon’s remedy at law. court is af- trial judgment

firmed. Rehearing. Motion

On POPE, Justice. as damages, stated suit for

Plaintiff’s an in- him to opinion, entitle our did not 352, junction. 22 Tex.Jur.2d plaintiff has decide that does not Court opin- damages. Our cause of action no denial of ion affirms the deci- limit of the junction, and that is the sion. is overruled. rehearing motion INC., Appellant, AHOY,

SHIP WHALEN, Individually and Gene d/b/a Company, Appellee. Gene Whalen & Appeals of of Civil Court Texas. Houston. June