Bickley v. Morgan Utilities Co., Inc.

294 S.W. 38, 173 Ark. 1038, 1927 Ark. LEXIS 286
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMay 9, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 294 S.W. 38 (Bickley v. Morgan Utilities Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bickley v. Morgan Utilities Co., Inc., 294 S.W. 38, 173 Ark. 1038, 1927 Ark. LEXIS 286 (Ark. 1927).

Opinion

Méhaeey, J.

This .is a suit by appellants for an injunction to prevent the erection and maintenance of an ice plant on lots 5 and 6, in block 58, in the city of Texar-. kana. The following is in substance the complaint filed in the chancery court:

“«The complaint alleged that the appellants were respectively the owners of lots set out therein; that the Morgan Company had purchased lots 5 and 6, in block 58, with the avowed intention and purpose of erecting thereon a plant for the manufacture and sale of ice; that appellant’s lots were adjacent to the location selected for said plant; that appellants and their predecessors had continuously owned lots referred to for twenty years or more, and during all of which time the same had been devoted exclusively to residential purposes; that the homes of each of the appellants were located on the various lots described in the. complaint. It was also alleged that the defendant had begun excavation for an ice plant, and would continue the construction and erection thereof, unless restrained; that the maintenance and operation of an ice plant would materially interfere with the enjoyment by plaintiffs of their homes; that they would be greatly annoyed and harassed by continuous and successive noises throughout the day and night, which noises were necessarily incident to the operation of such plant; that trucks and automobiles congregated at said plant would emit noises in starting and stopping and in loading and distributing the ice, and that, by reason thereof, the peace and comfort of their homes would be disturbed and rest therein would be rendered almost impossible; that ammonia fumes would escape from said plant, to the great annoyance and detriment of appellants,- and that the value of their property would be greatly depreciated and the occupancy thereof for dwelling rendered uncomfortable and practically impossible by the noises incident to the operation of said plant. That lots 5 and 6 had never theretofore been used for manufacturing purposes, but had been used almost exclusively for residential purposes. That the operation of said plant would necessarily result in a nuisance, to the irreparable damage of plaintiffs in the enjoyment of their homes, and in reduction of the market value of their property.' *

The prayer ivas for an injunction restraining the erection and maintenance of said ice plant.

The appellee filed answer, in substance as follows:

The answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, except the ownership by appellants of the various properties therein set out, and especially denied that the said plant would result in annoyance or disturb the rest of or the enjoyment of the comfort of the homes of the appellants. It alleged the purchase by Morgan Company of the property, at which time there was a small frame cottage and filling station and an automobile paint shop thereon, and admitted that it was engaged in the construction of an ice plant thereon. It alleged that Broad Street is the main business street of the city, and is just south of Third Street, and that Broad Street is built up almost entirely of business concerns, including manufacturing concerns, and-had been in such condition for years; that, in the past few years, Third Street has been taken for business purposes and practically all the residences removed therefrom, and that recently the fire limit had been extended by the city council, so as to include 'both blocks 58 and 59 of the city, of Texarkana; that a permit for the erection of the building had been issued by the city authorities; that the business section was fast encroaching upon Third Street; that no new residences had been erected on Third Street for many years, and the old residences were being removed therefrom. The answer’ further alleged that the ice plant being erected would be modern, operated by electric motors, and practically noiseless; that it would be kept sanitary, and would be so erected and constructed as to be beautiful; that the deliveries of ice and ingress and egress to the plant therefor would be made from the Third Street side of the property, and that the erection and operation of said plant would not be a nuisance.

J. G. Bickley testified, in substance, that he had lived in the city for thirty years, and lived on lot 4 in block 58, and had lived there for seven years; that all of the lots in block 58, except 5 and 6, were occupied solely by residences, and there was only one rent house in the block, a residence owned by Olivette. Howard owns lot 8, in block 59, and in addition thereto has a little confectionery store in front of the house, while the east half of block 59 is owned and used by the Catholics for school and church purposes. Block 58 is used solely for residences, except a little plumbing shop and filling station ón lot 6, and a little paint shop. There are no business houses in block 56. On block 55 there is an office building of the Security Mortgage Company, and from there on to Hazel Street it is all residences. South of Third, in block 69, there is a garage, while Bnhrman-Pharr Hardware Company is in block 68. The north half of block 67 is residences, while the south half of 67 is a little brick store. North half of block 66 is wholly residences. On the south half of 66 there is a streetcar barn; on the south half of 65 there is Tennison’s tin shop; on the north half of that block are residences. Across Hickory Street, in block 64, the property is occupied by stores, residences and a garage; all of the property east of Hickory and north of Third to County Avenue streetcar line is occupied by residences, and the whole district of Fourth Street back to Hazel Street is devoted exclusively to residences, except a tire shop on Fourth Street. The Bottoms house, the second finest in the city, is on Fifth and Hickory, while W. H. Arnold lives directly across, in front.

The brick wall of the ice plant is within six feet of witness’ bedroom window. They left a big window on the side next to witness’ property. The first witness knew of the erection of the plant was when the work was begun, and he served notice on them that he was going to enjoin them. This was a week or ten days before suit was begun. No material had been put on the ground when notice was served.

Witness stated that he had observed the operation of the electrically driven ice plant of Mr. Powers, on Broad Street. At the time he took notice particularly of it it was only running a part of the machinery, but could easily he heard two blocks away at night. Witness is located two and a half blocks from the Powers plant. It would be necessary, in the operation of the plant of appel-lee, to use trucks or teams to distribute the ice, and that in the summer time plants are operated day and night. They begin their deliveries at four or five o’clock, and witness stated he could not live in his house at all because of the noise and fumes from the ammonia. He could smell ammonia from the Powers plant when out in the street, and could hear the running of the engine of the Powers plant two and a half- blocks from it. Tbe ice is manufactured in sheet-iron buckets, and, when frozen, the buckets are dumped in hot water, and, when they pull more than one can at a time, you can hear them half a mile on a still night.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miniat v. McGinnis
762 S.W.2d 390 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1988)
Short v. Smithy
273 S.W.2d 393 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1954)
Powell v. Taylor
263 S.W.2d 906 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1954)
Bryson v. Ellsworth
200 S.W.2d 504 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1947)
Clay County Ice Co. v. Littlefield
63 S.W.2d 530 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1933)
Southern Ice & Utilities Co. v. Bryan
58 S.W.2d 920 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1933)
Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. West Memphis Power & Water Co.
58 S.W.2d 206 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1933)
Murphy v. Cupp
31 S.W.2d 396 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1930)
Jones v. Kelley Trust Co.
18 S.W.2d 356 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1929)
Yaffe v. Fort Smith
10 S.W.2d 886 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
294 S.W. 38, 173 Ark. 1038, 1927 Ark. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bickley-v-morgan-utilities-co-inc-ark-1927.