Downey v. Jackson

65 So. 2d 825, 259 Ala. 189, 1953 Ala. LEXIS 192
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMarch 26, 1953
Docket6 Div. 423
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 65 So. 2d 825 (Downey v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Downey v. Jackson, 65 So. 2d 825, 259 Ala. 189, 1953 Ala. LEXIS 192 (Ala. 1953).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final decree in-a suit in which an appeal to this Court was taken from a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill and dismissing it. Jackson v. Downey, 252 Ala. 649, 42 So.2d 246.

The substance of the allegations of the bill is contained in our opinion on that appeal. But for present purposes, we will state some of its features. The bill seeks to enjoin the Park and Recreation Board of the City of Birmingham from the further construction and completion of the electric lighting system at the present location of a baseball diamond in McLendon Park in said city, and from sponsoring the night playing of baseball games on it at said location. Complainants are the owners of and reside-in homes situated on the west side of Sixth Street, North. McLendon Park is on the east side of Sixth Street, opposite these homes. Other details are also shown by the evidence which we will relate later.

There was no temporary injunction issued. The construction of the project went forward, was completed and use made of it. It was contended in the trial court that its construction and use have sustained the forecast of complainants that it would produce a nuisance. That court entertained the view that its use as constructed for baseball games at night does in fact constitute a nuisance, and entered a final decree permanently enjoining these respondents from using, causing, allowing or permitting to be used the area in question for the playing of night baseball games thereon, and from further using or permitting to be used for athletic contests the lighting system installed on the eighty foot poles situated thereon. The court did not enjoin the use of the area for baseball games conducted in the daylight. We judge from-such holding that the trial court concluded that the night games constituted a nuisance on account of conduct and conditions peculiarly applicable to night games. This decree was rendered February 20, 1952, and *192 was controlled by conditions shown to have existed in the baseball season of 1951.

There are eight light poles constructed around the diamond in question, practically eighty feet high, each of them having ten or twenty high powered flood lights of about 1,500 watts in each light. Two of the light poles are behind the home plate and are focused toward the infield away from complainants’ property. Complainants’ homes are across the street behind the home plate. Two of the poles are in the outfield (one on each side of it) with the lights directed on the infield and part of the outfield; four are located in or behind the outfield and illuminate the outfield area. Only two of them face the residences of complainants, and they have only two tiers of lights on them. They are focused down on the field and are four hundred feet away from the nearest residence. The only light which falls on complainants’ property is reflected. The engineers for respondents testified that there is less light on complainants’ property coming from the diamond than if a white way was installed along the street in front of their homes.

The proof showed that in 1951 there were fourteen ball games played on the diamond at night, extending from August 1st to September 3rd, and no night games were played after 10:30. All were amateur teams in the Birmingham area. They compose the Birmingham Amateur Baseball Federation. The attendance was approximately two hundred persons, and no charge was made. This diamond has been used for daytime playing since about 1928 or 1929. The city acquired an area of about forty-two acres in 1923 for park and recreational purposes. This diamond is located on it and so is Legion Field, the football stadium used as such since Thanksgiving Day 1927. The management will not allow trespassing on complainants’ property to retrieve balls which are sometimes knocked on their property, which is not peculiar to night games. The noises made are shown not to be unusual for amateur ball games. There is no rowdy conduct or cursing.

It is shown that the diamond is about fifteen feet below the level of the street grade and sixteen and one-half feet below the property of complainants. There is a six foot wire fence along the Sixth Street side of the diamond. It would be practical to build a screen that would eliminate most of the glare on the residences. It is not practicable to' use some other place in the reservation for a diamond. The street there is fifty feet wide: thirty feet of it is a paved roadway. The seating stands are concrete, erected in 1935, with a seating capacity of about three hundred and fifty to four hundred persons. The diamond has been in its present location since 1928. The home plate is about one hundred and thirty to one hundred and thirty-five feet from the nearest residence.

The proof did not show any drinking at the games. There are convenient toilet facilities, though on two occasions persons were seen using the bushes to relieve themselves, and a few people had changed their outer clothes in the bushes. The following recreational activities were carried on in the park: tennis, football, volley ball, horseshoes, softball, archery and other games. The lights were installed in the fall of 1948, and are also used for parking on the diamond for’ football game attendants at the stadium, and were first used for night baseball in 1951. The area on the side of Sixth Street across from the park is zoned as “B” residential.

The Birmingham Amateur Baseball Federation is a nonprofit organization of leagues of amateur baseball teams. The park board, which operates the park here in question, operates sixty parks in the city, and with other organizations it sponsors baseball for boys.

There was little or no material conflict in the evidence. The facts disclosed by it create a different impression from those alleged in the bill, but they do not conflict. It appears that the baseball diamond here involved resembles in its construction and use many high school recreation grounds. Their use by such players is in the interest of the general public, to build sound bodies for the boys and the right viewpoint which they should develop in respect to the real contests which will come in mature *193 years. On the occasion of their games the enthusiasm of it will manifest itself in wholesome noisy expressions. That status is an incident to all such recreations, and must be endured — perhaps, encouraged. The games are supervised and apparently well conducted.

Only the night games were sought to be enjoined, but the daylight games had the same disturbances as those at night, except the lights. The games were over by about 10:30 at night.

It must be emphasized that this is no place for commercial baseball or other forms of commercial recreation. The players are amateurs playing strictly for sport, in which sound development of the boys is the chief purpose.

The park and recreation board is an agency of the city, created by authority of law. Sections 721 to 729, Title 62, Code. The performance of their duties is discharging a governmental function of the city. Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14; section 729, Title 62, Code. It is therefore done by authority of law. And it is not done for profit. It is not of a proprietary nature, but under the police power to promote the health and well-being of the people. This particular kind of recreation is specifically authorized by section 721, Title 62, Code.

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

Related

Benson W. Peak v. City of Tuscaloosa.
73 So. 3d 5 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2011)
City of Selma v. Dallas County
964 So. 2d 12 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2007)
Cunningham v. City of Attalla
918 So. 2d 119 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2005)
Town of Hokes Bluff v. Butler
404 So. 2d 623 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1981)
City of Birmingham v. City of Fairfield
375 So. 2d 438 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1979)
CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP, ETC. v. Ashton
448 P.2d 185 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1968)
City of Birmingham v. Scogin
115 So. 2d 505 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
City of Decatur v. Parham
109 So. 2d 692 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
Shell Oil Company v. Edwards
81 So. 2d 535 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 So. 2d 825, 259 Ala. 189, 1953 Ala. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downey-v-jackson-ala-1953.