Riggs v. Hill
| Decision Date | 28 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4-6079 |
| Citation | 144 S.W.2d 26,201 Ark. 206 |
| Parties | RIGGS v. HILL |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District; C. M Wofford, Chancellor; affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Franklin Wilder and Roy Gean, for appellant.
Pryor & Pryor, for appellee.
Appellants instituted this action in the Sebastian chancery court, alleging that the appellants are the owners of the northwest one-half of lots 5 and 6, block 23, city of Fort Smith, Arkansas, and that the appellees and others are constructing a wall along the south part of the west half of appellants' lot 5, and are encroaching upon appellants' property on the south line six inches on the ground of said rock wall and four and a half inches near the second story elevation of said wall, being an encroachment on the southeast corner on the northwesterly half of lot 5. On the appellants' property is located a two-story brick apartment house and the appellees are so constructing the wall as to cut out light and air to the appellants' apartment house which has stood on appellants' premises for many years, and damaged the roof of said apartment house and the supports underneath said roof to such an extent as to cause rain and water to come through the roof and leak and damage the inside of appellants' property, and said construction is such as to cause water to flow off the roof of appellants' house and flood the lower floor, all of which is a continuing nuisance and trespass against the rights of appellants. The complaint alleged that the appellees are insolvent and committing irreparable damage and harm and have destroyed the market and usable value of said apartment to their damage in the sum of $ 5,000.
A temporary restraining order was issued by the court, and appellees thereafter filed a motion to dissolve this order. Evidence was taken on the motion, and the court granted the motion and dissolved the temporary restraining order. The appellants excepted and prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted.
After filing the transcript in this case, the appellants moved this court to grant a temporary restraining order, which motion was denied.
Section 7507 of Pope's Digest provides for appeals where, upon hearing in the circuit or chancery court, or by a judge thereof in vacation, an injunction is granted, continued modified, refused, or dissolved by an interlocutory order or decree, etc., that an appeal may be taken from such interlocutory order or decree.
It is contended by the appellee that this statute is unconstitutional.
In the case of Page v. McKinley, 196 Ark. 331, 118 S.W.2d 235, this court had occasion to pass on § 7507 of Pope's Digest, and stated:
The chancellor found that the building under construction by appellees was begun in November, 1939; that the property is owned by the State of Arkansas and work being done by WPA forces of the federal government, and it is estimated that the approximate cost of the building will be about $ 33,000. The lot on which the building is being constructed adjoins the property of the plaintiffs, and just before starting the work on the building the city engineer made a survey and located what purported to be the lines of the lot on which the building was to be erected; plaintiff knew this and saw where the foundation was being erected up to and including the second story thereof; they made no objection or claim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCuen v. Harris
...Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, supra; Scrivner v. Portis Mercantile Co., 220 Ark. 814, 250 S.W.2d 119 (1952); Riggs v. Hill, 201 Ark. 206, 144 S.W.2d 26 (1940). We believe that the chancery court's analysis of the laches issue was correct. While we do not dispute the appellants' suggesti......
-
Wilson v. Pulaski Ass'n of Classroom Teachers, 96-1048
...Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, supra; Scrivner v. Portis Mercantile Co., 220 Ark. 814, 250 S.W.2d 119 (1952); Riggs v. Hill, 201 Ark. 206, 144 S.W.2d 26 (1940). Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65(a)(1) provides that, where a preliminary injunction is to be given without notice to......
-
Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh
...restraining order. The Chancellor refused to issue such temporary injunction, and Lion has appealed from such refusal. In Riggs v. Hill, 201 Ark. 206, 144 S.W.2d 26, 28, we quoted with approval from 28 Am.Jur. 500, the rule definitely recognized in this 'The granting or refusing of injuncti......
-
Price v. Edmonds, 5-1980
...themselves or with companies in which a commissioner had a beneficial interest. In these circumstances, what we said in Riggs v. Hill, 201 Ark. 206, 144 S.W.2d 26, 28, applies with equal force here. 'The granting or refusing of injunctive relief rests within the judicial discretion of the t......