Bourbon Stockyard Co. v. Woolley

• Decision Date: 25 September 1903
• Citation: 76 S.W. 28
• Parties: BOURBON STOCKYARD CO. v. WOOLLEY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

76 S.W. 28

BOURBON STOCKYARD CO. v. WOOLLEY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 25, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Division.

"Not to be officially reported."

Suit by R. W. Woolley against the Bourbon Stockyard Company for the abatement of a nuisance and for damages. From the part of the decree abating the nuisance defendant appeals, and from the part transferring the question of damages to the common-law division of the court plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Gibson Marshall & Gibson, for appellant.

R. W Woolley, pro se.

NUNN J.

The appellee filed his petition in the Jefferson chancery court against the appellant alleging that he was the owner as tenant for life of several lots and one in fee simple on and adjacent to Bickel avenue between Main and Market streets, in the city of Louisville and that the appellant wrongfully and without authority had erected chutes, buildings, and other obstructions which closed Bickel avenue at the point where it intersected Market street and for several hundred feet along it in the direction of Main street, and that such obstruction was a public nuisance, which especially and peculiarly damaged his property, and reduced the value of it for sale and rental, by greatly obstructing his means of egress and ingress from and to it. Bickel street had been dedicated and accepted by the city as one of the streets of the city. He asked for an order of court compelling to remove the obstruction from this street, and for more than $6,000 damages for the injury already done him and his property. The substance of appellant's answer was that appellee was not specially or peculiarly damaged, or his property injured more than the public in general, or damaged in any sum, and denied his right to maintain this action; but that the right of action, if any at all, was in the city, and that it had an action pending to remove the obstruction; and it pleaded the action of the city as a bar to his right to maintain this action. Upon these issues and the proof the lower court adjudged that appellant was then, and was at the institution of the action and long prior thereto, unlawfully obstructing and occupying Bickel avenue, 60 feet in width and about 740 feet in length, between Main and Market streets, in the city of Louisville, and was thereby maintaining a nuisance, and directed the abatement thereof by removing all the obstructions, giving appelle...