Roberts v. C.F. Adams & Son
| Decision Date | 10 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | 32893. |
| Citation | 184 P.2d 634,199 Okla. 369,1947 OK 340 |
| Parties | ROBERTS et al. v. C. F. ADAMS & SON. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Carter County; J. I. Goins, Judge.
Action by Jewell Roberts and others against C. F. Adams & Son to enjoin defendant from erecting and operating a wholesale gasoline, kerosene and oil distributing plant on real estate located in the same neighborhood as other property owned by plaintiffs and occupied as homes. From an adverse judgment plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The test as to whether the court erred in refusing to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case tried to the court is whether under all the facts and circumstances the party requesting such finding has been denied a substantial right.
2. This court will not grant injunctive relief enjoining the installation and maintenance of a wholesale gasoline and oil bulk station plant on private property outside of an incorporated city or town, which is unrestricted railroad 'trackage' property and sparsely settled, although the area has theretofore been used for residential purposes unless it is alleged and proven that such steps and precautions will not be taken, as are known to be necessary to avoid the danger of, and prevent fires and explosions.
Shilling & Shilling, of Ardmore, for plaintiffs in error.
Williams & Williams, of Ardmore, for defendant in error.
Plaintiffs by this action seek to enjoin the defendant from erecting and operating a wholesale gasoline, kerosene and oil distributing plant on real estate located in the same neighborhood as other property owned by them and occupied as homes.
All of the parties were owners of various lots in Walcott Addition to the City of Ardmore, Oklahoma, which lay just south of and outside the city limits. Between the city proper and the addition, extending in an east and west direction were the rights of way of two railroads. Parallel to these rights of way and 162 feet south is Moore Street. This intervening space is divided into lots and blocks which front south on the street and extend north to the railroads. The defendant purchased four of these lots with a combined frontage of 105 feet and had commenced construction of a bulk station plant for wholesale distribution of gasoline, oil and other petroleum products. Plaintiffs, the owners of various lots on both sides of Moore Street, who were occupying the same as homes, brought this action to restrain the defendant from constructing and maintaining the plant, alleging that it would constitute a nuisance in that the district was residential and would lose its value as such; that fire insurance rates on their property would be materially increased; that the value of their properties would be substantially reduced; and that it would disturb their peace, comfort and repose.
The district herein involved consisted of nine blocks in the above addition; four half-blocks lying north of and fronting on Moore Street and five full blocks lying So. In the block east of defendant's lots and across a side street was one house used as a combined residence and neighborhood grocery. West of the defendant's property and in the same block was one residence. No residences were in the next block west of that and one was in the block west of that which was bounded on its west by U.S. Highway No. 77. Directly south of defendant's property and across Moore Street was a block in which there were some seven or eight houses, two of which fronted on Moore Street, the others on side streets. The block east of this had one house on it and the other blocks west of the highway were vacant.
The testimony on the part of the plaintiffs was concerned principally with the effect of defendant's establishment of the plant on the use of the property of plaintiff Hoffman, whose house was in the same block, and who was most seriously affected. As to the decrease in value of the Hoffman lots, he testified personally that he purchased the tract for $6,200 about 30 days previous to the filing of this action and that he had refused an offer of $8,000 for it, which was made after defendant started construction of the plant. All of the plaintiffs who testified said that they would be disturbed by the proposed construction and maintenance of defendant's business.
The Chief Deputy State Fire Marshal testified in substance that the storage of gasoline at any time or place increased the fire hazard of the vicinity.
Defendant testified that he intended to install some seven to twelve tanks of approximately 11,000 gallon capacity each; about half of them for oil and half for gasoline. That he had employed an expert to...
To continue reading
Request your trial