Thompson v. Evangelical Hosp. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 26 November 1923
• Docket Number: No. 22586.,22586.
• Citation: 111 Neb. 191,196 N.W. 117
• Parties: THOMPSON ET AL. v. EVANGELICAL HOSPITAL ASS'N.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

111 Neb. 191

196 N.W. 117

THOMPSON ET AL.

v.EVANGELICAL HOSPITAL ASS'N.

No. 22586.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Nov. 26, 1923.

Syllabus by the Court.

That a hospital in itself is objectionable to those residing in close proximity to the site of a proposed hospital, or that the value of property in the neighborhood may be adversely affected, do not ordinarily constitute sufficient grounds to warrant a decree enjoining its erection.

Evidence examined, and held insufficient to warrant a court of equity in granting the relief prayed.

Appeal from District Court, Lancaster County; Morning, Judge.

Action by David L. Thompson and others against the Evangelical Hospital Association to enjoin defendant from erecting and operating a general hospital in the immediate vicinity of plaintiffs' property. From a judgment denying the writ, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.Walter L. Anderson, Glen H. Foe, and Clarence G. Miles, all of Lincoln, for appellants.

Boehmer & Boehmer, of Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., LETTON, DEAN, and DAY, JJ., and REDICK, District Judge.

MORRISSEY, C. J.

Plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin defendant from erecting and operating a general hospital upon the north half of block 46 in Dawson's addition to South Lincoln. The ground selected as a site for the proposed hospital is bounded by Fourteenth street on the east, Summer street on the north, Thirteenth street on the west, and a 16-foot alley on the south, and the tract is 142 feet by 300 feet. Plaintiffs are property owners residing with their families in the immediate vicinity of this tract of ground. The neighborhood is a closely built-up residential district and the houses are occupied by their owners.

It is alleged in the petition that it is the intention of defendant to receive and care for the sick, diseased and injured, and that plaintiffs will be continually annoyed by gruesome sights, sounds and smells at all hours of the day; “that these sights and sounds will be a continual reminder of the gloomy, morbid, uncertain side of life, and will tend to deprive these plaintiffs of the enjoyment of their homes because of these mental associations; that these plaintiffs will be depressed mentally, their vitality consequently lowered and their resistance to disease weakened because of the natural instinctive fear of contagion from the hospital; that the properties so owned by plaintiffs are improved with dwelling houses of the value of several thousand dollars each; that the hospital proposed will greatly depreciate and lower the value of the property to the injury of these plaintiffs; that a hospital, if established as proposed, will work a continuing irreparable injury to these plaintiffs and they are without an adequate remedy at law.”

Defendant answered admitting its intention to erect a hospital on the tract of ground mentioned in the petition and that plaintiffs reside in their own homes in the immediate vicinity. It is alleged that the specifications for the building have been approved by the proper authorities of the city; that the building when erected will be 40 feet by 164 feet, three stories in height, with a basement; that no contagious diseases will be allowed to enter the proposed hospital; that a hospital is a necessity; and that defendant has no intention of injuring plaintiffs. The reply was in the form of a general denial of the new matter pleaded in the answer.

It was stipulated that defendant is a corporation; that the tract in question is in a residential district; that 48 members of the families living in immediate proximity to the...