Weidner v. Friedman

• Decision Date: 23 November 1912
• Citation: 151 S.W. 56,126 Tenn. 677
• Parties: WEIDNER et al. v. FRIEDMAN et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

151 S.W. 56

126 Tenn. 677

WEIDNER et al. v. FRIEDMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 23, 1912

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hamilton County; T. M. McConnell Chancellor.

Bills by M. G. Weidner and others against Irene Friedman and others for an injunction to suppress disorderly houses as nuisances. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, confirming a decree for complainants and adjudging defendants in contempt for disobedience of injunctions, defendants bring certiorari. Judgment and decree reversed, with directions to dismiss the bill, and orders in contempt proceedings modified and affirmed.

Cook & Swaney, Meachan & McGaughy, and Spears & Lynch, all of Chattanooga, for complainants.

T. Pope Shepherd and Murray & Latimore, all of Chattanooga, for defendants.

NEIL J.

Bills original, amended, and supplemental, filed against certain proprietors of disorderly houses and their inmates, and the owners of some of the houses wherein the illegal business is carried on, in Chattanooga, to suppress all of the houses as nuisances by permanent injunction, and to perpetually enjoin the owners from leasing the houses for such unlawful purpose. These houses are located in what is known as the "red light district" of Chattanooga, covering parts of Florence and Helen streets, most of them adjoining each other, and all near together. The bill was filed by private citizens owning property in the neighborhood--that is, within a block, or two or three blocks--on the ground of special and peculiar injury to them, in marring the comfort of their homes, and injuring the rental and sale value of their property. Originally there were very many complainants, but as to most of them the bills were dismissed on their own motion, and they were taxed with all of the costs accrued to that time, by the chancellor. Others entered no formal dismissal, and, while remaining nominally complainants, have really abandoned the case, so that there are now left only five active complainants. Their names are H. A. Weidner, H Fritts, Joseph Josephs, H. Koblentz, and F. E. Tyler. A decree according to the prayer of the bill was rendered against all of the defendants, but only the following of them appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, viz.: J. C. C Garner, O. E. Pooler, Laura Hines, Bessie McBee, Ada Culver, Lucile Martin, Pauline Miller, Nellie Gray, Sallie Smith, Lillian Sterling, and Annie Bouley. The two first were proceeded against as owners of the property, or some of it. Laura Hines, Ada Culver, Lillian Sterling, and Annie Bouley were proceeded against as madames, or proprietors of houses, and the others as inmates.

The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the decree of the chancellor, and thereupon the case was brought to this court by the writ of certiorari. It is insisted in behalf of petitioners, defendants below, that the evidence is insufficient to support the decree, that the evidence does not sustain the charge that complainants suffered any injury in person or property different in kind from that suffered by the general public, and that, in any event, the evidence does not point particularly to any one of the several defendants sued as proprietors and inmates, but only in a general way to all of the "red light district."

It is claimed by defendants, as matter of law, that no judgment of abatement as to the individual houses can be rested on such general and indefinite evidence. On the other hand, it is averred by complainants that there is evidence in terms implicating all, at least in a general way, and that this must be held to include each. Likewise complainants put forward the proposition of law that all can be proceeded against as being jointly engaged in the commission of a nuisance, and held liable, even though no conspiracy between them be proven, on the ground that they are so near together locally, and their operations are so synchronous, that they must be treated as together creating the nuisance complained of. The rule is also invoked that, where there is a concurrence between the chancellor and the Court of Civil Appeals, this court will not reverse, if there is any evidence to support such concurrence. It is claimed by complainants that there is evidence to support such concurrence on the point of special damage peculiar to the complainants, as distinguished from the general public; and they point to the fact that defendants do not deny that they, respectively, are proprietors and inmates of disorderly houses on the streets mentioned.

There is no doubt that the keeping of a disorderly house is a nuisance. It was so at common law, and is so under our statute. It is a misdemeanor, and the ordinary remedy is in the criminal court, which court can act most effectively by fine and imprisonment, and judgment of abatement. The chancery court has only a limited jurisdiction, which is defined in Weakley v. Page, 102 Tenn. 179, 53 S.W 551, 46 L. R. A. 552, as the power to grant relief at the suit of a private person only when he can prove special and peculiar injury to himself, different in kind from that suffered by the general public. That case is in accord with the weight of authority in other jurisdictions. Everywhere the powers of the court are confined within the narrow limits there laid down, and some cases take even a more restricted view. We are not disposed to expand and extend the doctrine further by construction. There would, by such course of decision, result extreme danger to the usefulness of the...