Durfey v. Thalheimer
Decision Date | 09 March 1908 |
Parties | DURFEY v. THALHEIMER et al. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jesse C. Hart, Chancellor.
Suit by Frank Durfey against Benjamin Thalheimer and another. From a judgment for plaintiff for less than the relief demanded, both parties appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Geo. W. Williams, for appellants. Chas. Jacobson, for appellee.
Frank Durfey commenced suit against Benjamin and Sidney Thalheimer in the Pulaski chancery court, alleging in his complaint that he was the owner of a certain house in a residential part of Little Rock, Ark., which had been occupied by himself and his ancestors for many years; that defendants had purchased certain adjoining lots, and intended to build on the same a brick livery stable, and to keep therein mules, horses, and other stock and all kinds of vehicles, and to operate it with a large number of servants, at all times, in the day and night. If built and operated the stench from the animals and their droppings, danger from fire, swarms of flies, and the noises during the day and night would render it an intolerable nuisance, and greatly depreciate plaintiff's property, and inflict upon him an irreparable injury, and asked that they be restrained from erecting the stable.
The defendants answered, and denied the allegations in the complaint, and that the lots mentioned in the complaint were in a residential part of Little Rock, and alleged that they had obtained a permit from the city to build the stable.
Thereafter plaintiff and his wife, whom he had married since the institution of this suit, filed a supplemental complaint, in which they alleged, in addition to what was already alleged in the complaint, that the defendants had erected on the lots purchased by them a two-story building, and were using it as a livery and sale stable, and kept many horses, mules, and other stock and all kinds of vehicles, and have hired a large number of servants, mostly negroes, who are boisterous, blasphemous, and offensive; that they keep on hand hay, grain, and other highly inflammable material; that they stable their animals in the second story of the building, where windows open opposite to plaintiffs' bedrooms, and within a few feet; that odors from the animals and their droppings pour into their bedrooms and make them uninhabitable; "that the negroes are so placed that they have sight into the interior of their private apartments, and could, with small efforts, pass into them at any hour of the day or night; that plaintiffs and their children are kept in fear and dread of the negroes; that defendants openly violate the Sabbath by operating the stable on that day, thereby disturbing the quiet and rest of plaintiffs, who are members of the Christian Church; that their property has greatly depreciated, and has been rendered unfit for residence, and has been practically confiscated, as they cannot use or sell it," and the health of Mrs. Durfey has been impaired; and they asked that defendants be perpetually enjoined and restrained from using the building as a stable.
The defendants answered, and denied the allegations in the supplemental complaint, and alleged that they obtained a permit from the city to build the stable, and that it had been properly built and kept.
Evidence was adduced by plaintiffs tending to prove that they owned and occupied as a residence the lots and house thereon claimed by them in their complaint, and defendants had erected a brick livery stable on lots adjoining, as stated in the complaint, which rendered the house of plaintiffs undesirable as a boarding house or residence.
H. C. McCain testified to the following effect:
Mrs. Wilson:
Mrs. Banister:
D. B. Neal:
Tillar: "Thinks property of plaintiffs greatly damaged in value on account of stable."
Greenwood:
The plaintiffs sustained the allegations in their complaint by their testimony.
Dr. G. M. D. Cantrell:
Carter Johnson, Morehead Wright, E. J. Bodeman, B. Bodeman, R. Colburn Butler, and J. E. Turpin, real estate agents, testified that defendants' stable had not affected the market value of plaintiffs' residence.
Dr. Anderson Watkins testified:
A. S. Reaves testified:
Charles M. Simon:
Asbury Winder testified:
Tom Kinley testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Durfey v. Thalheimer
-
City of Springdale v. Chandler, 5-100
...Merrill v. City of Van Buren, 125 Ark. 248, 188 S.W. 537. A livery stable in a city or town is not a nuisance per se, Durfey v. Thalheimer, 85 Ark. 544, 109 S.W. 519, City of Fort Smith v. Bonner, 194 Ark. 466, 107 S.W.2d 539, nor is the hide and fur business, City of Fort Smith v. Western ......
-
Higgs v. Anderson, CA
...appellees suffered a financial or property depreciation loss is not the sole issue. In fact, the Supreme Court in Durfey v. Thalheimer, 85 Ark. 544, 109 S.W. 519 (1908), recognized the general rule that a mere diminution in value of property, which can be fully and readily compensated in da......