Huddleston v. Burnett

• Decision Date: 23 November 1926
• Docket Number: 12
• Citation: 287 S.W. 1013,172 Ark. 216
• Parties: HUDDLESTON v. BURNETT
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

287 S.W. 1013

172 Ark. 216

HUDDLESTON v. BURNETT

No. 12

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 23, 1926

Appeal from Pope Chancery Court; W. E. Atkinson, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

J. H A. Baker and J. A. Worsham, for appellant.

E. A Williams, for appellee.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court of Pope County enjoining appellants from building and operating a filling station and public garage on a strip of land 85 east and west by 246 feet north and south, fronting on the Little Rock & Fort Smith highway, in the residence section of the town of Atkins. The lot in question adjoins appellee's home on the east and Mrs. T. J. Robinson's home on the west. The plan was to erect the station and garage nearer the north line of the highway than the other residences situated on the north side, and, when erected, would be located within 100 or 125 feet of appellee's house. Hundreds of automobiles and trucks passed along the highway daily, and, in the tourist season of the year, passed both day and night. The homes of appellee and his neighbors were built in this locality with a view to getting out of the business district of the town. It was distinctively a residence section, located some five or six blocks away from the business district. Appellant, J. W. Huddleston, owned and operated a filling station in the business district of the town, and, in partnership with E. W. Lawson, purchased the strip of land in question upon which to build a filling station, garage and residence, to be occupied by appellant, E. W. Lawson, who was to operate said station. The strip of land in question was purchased after appellee and his neighbors had built their homes in that locality.

It was alleged in the complaint that the operation of a filling station and public garage would become a nuisance by creating such noise, through the honking of horns, racing, and testing of motors, thereby destroying the peace, quiet and comfort of appellee's home.

Appellants filed an answer, admitting that they intended to construct a filling station and garage upon the strip of land in question, but denying that the operation thereof would constitute a nuisance.

The testimony introduced was directed to the sole issue presented by the pleadings, of whether the operation of a filling station and garage in that particular locality would constitute a nuisance that would result in irreparable damage to appellee. The trial court found that it would, and permanently enjoined the construction thereof, so the correctness of the finding and decree is before us for trial de novo.

The construction and operation of a filling station and...