Donaghey v. Lincoln

• Citation: 287 S.W. 412
• Decision Date: 25 October 1926
• Docket Number: (Nos. 201, 216.)
• Parties: DONAGHEY et al. v. LINCOLN et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

287 S.W. 412

DONAGHEY et al. v. LINCOLN et al.

(Nos. 201, 216.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 25, 1926.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor.

Suit by C. K. Lincoln and others against George W. Donaghey and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Decree modified.

Moore, Smith, Moore & Trieber, of Little Rock, for appellants.

Cockrill & Armistead and John W. Newman, all of Little Rock, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

Charles K. Lincoln and Georgia L. Shipton are the owners as tenants in common of a lot with a store building situated thereon in the city of Little Rock, abutting on that part of North Main street which constitutes the approach to the new Main street bridge constructed by appellant district. There were assessments of benefits and damages by the assessors of the district in the manner set forth in detail in the opinion in Donaghey v. Lincoln, 287 S. W. 407, this day rendered. The damages were fixed at $7,500 by the board of assessors, and in apt time appellees instituted this action challenging the correctness of the award of damages.

The new bridge has been constructed by the improvement district to replace the old bridge across the river, joining the two cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock, and extending from Main street, on the Little Rock side, to Maple street, on the North Little Rock side. The building in controversy, owned by appellees, is a four story and basement brick building, suitable entirely for a wholesale business and occupied by the C. J. Lincoln Drug Company, a corporation engaged in the wholesale drug business. The building has a frontage of 25 feet on the west side of Main street, running back about 130 feet on the north side of Elm street. It is in the shape of the letter "L," and the east wing is of the same width, 25 feet, and extends north 150 feet in length to Water street. In the angle of this ell there is a brick building owned and occupied by Fones Hardware Company, doing a wholesale business in that line. While the old bridge was in existence, the ground floor of the Lincoln building was on a level with the approach to the bridge. The north end of the other ell fronted on Water street, along which there was a railroad spur track, and there was a loading platform for the purpose of loading and unloading freight from cars which were placed on the track at the platform. Nearly all of the goods were received and taken into the building at that place. There is an elevator at the southwest corner of the building, which serves all of the floors in the building in handling goods. Elm street is paved, and is 20 feet wide. There are two openings in the building on Elm street towards the west end of the building and near the elevator — a general delivery door and a small city delivery door. Goods destined for railroad shipment are handled by trucks at the general delivery door, and the deliveries to local drug stores are handled through what is called the city delivery door. Prior to the construction of the new bridge, deliveries were also made at the front door on Main street for handling country orders and for express shipments and for deliveries to local drug stores through the services of delivery boys on bicycles. The front part of the building on Main street, for a distance of 48 feet from the door, was occupied by the offices of the C. J. Lincoln Drug Company; that space being pretty well filled by desks and other office furniture. There was an open space between the desks and other furniture, used as a passageway so that goods could be trucked entirely through the building and delivered to the front door. Beginning at the back of the office space, and continuing the full length of the Main street wing of the building, there were mezzanine floors on each side, about eight feet in height from the floor. These mezzanine floors were used for storage purposes, and, according to the testimony in the case, were essential to the sufficiency of the storage space. It is also shown in the testimony that the building was equipped with a sprinkler system for fire protection, and that in operating that system it was necessary to leave wall space between the ceiling and shelving.

In constructing the new bridge it was necessary to raise the grade of the bridge approach in front of the building owned by appellees, and, instead of being level with the floor of the building, it was raised about four feet above the floor. In other words, it left the floor about four feet below the street level, which, if the building be left in its present condition, would require steps that distance down into the store. The grade of Elm street was also slightly raised so as to conform to the new grade on Main street, but not far enough north for the grade to interfere with the entrance at the doors on that street.

There...