Bartlett v. Moats, (1935)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 13
Judges: BUFORD, J. —
Attorneys: George Palmer Garrett, for Appellants;
Dickinson Dickinson, for Appellees.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
That the opinion which has been prepared by a majority of the Court may be understood, we preface the same by a a statement of facts as gleaned from the record and as stated in Appellants' brief, which is conceded to be a correct statement by the appellees;
The various plaintiffs are the owners of certain properties in Waterwitch Club Subdivision. In said subdivision there are seven dwelling houses. Said subdivision is strictly a residential section of community, there being no business houses, stores, factories, or other buildings located therein except a club house. The club house and three tennis courts are located on Lot 10. It was the intention of the owners and promoters of said subdivision that said subdivision should be used solely for the pleasure and amusement of the residents of said subdivision and their guests. One of the seven dwelling houses is owned by the plaintiff, Sumner G. Rand, and Mary Rand, his wife, and is located approximately 100 feet from the tennis courts and club house. One of the said seven dwellings is owned by Herschel O. Moats and Vivian D. Moats, his wife, and is located approximately the same distance from the said tennis courts and club house. One of the said dwellings is owned by John Amman and is located approximately 350 feet from
the said tennis courts and said club house. One of the said dwellings is owned by Draper Bartlett, one of the defendants, and is located approximately 150 feet from the tennis courts and club house. One of the said dwellings is owned by J. F. Garrett and is located approximately 150 feet from the said tennis courts and club house. One of the said dwellings is owned by C. O. Saunders, and is located approximately 600 feet from said tennis courts and club house. One of the said dwellings is owned by Carl Bauman and is located approximately 450 feet from said tennis courts and club house. Recently the owners of said subdivision, without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs, sold and conveyed said club house and tennis courts to Percy W. Brooks and his wife, who are now the owners thereof and the defendant, Draper Bartlett, has recently rented or leased said premises, namely the said Lot 10 of Waterwitch Club Subdivision, from the said owners and has taken possession of the said premises and is making use of the property in the manner hereinafter set out.
On one of the tennis courts the defendants have erected or caused to be erected and are now maintaining an open air dance floor or pavilion and have surrounded the same with poles on the top of which are attached palmetto leaves and Spanish moss, upon which are strung electric lights of the type used to adorn Christmas trees, and have erected at the edge of the dance floor an unsightly lean-to for the seating of an orchestra, and around the dance floor have placed tables and chairs to be used by their patrons and dancers.
On or about the 19th day of July, 1934, the defendants, or one of them, employed a dance orchestra and held a dance on said premises, to which the public at large was invited and an admission charge of the sum of 25c per person
was made. Since said date, the defendants have held several dances, not less than two dances each week. Said dance floor and night club is open to the public. Each time a dance is held a large number of patrons and guests congregate on the premises to dance and drink. The defendants furnish music made by a band or orchestra. The defendants have named and advertised said public dance pavilion as "The Dream Garden" and the bar room as "The Ship's Bar" and have erected a large electric sign at the side of South Fern Creek Drive and other signs along the highway to attract patrons thereto. When the said dances are held the orchestra begins playing its instruments about 9 o'clock and continue to play until 1 and 2 o'clock the next morning. As the dance or evening progresses, the noise from the orchestra gets louder and louder and at times the members of the orchestra, as well as the dancers, yell, shout and sing. The patrons and dancers begin to arrive about the time the orchestra begins to play and continue to arrive and depart until it stops. The patrons park their automobiles around and upon said premises. During the evening, such patrons as desire so to do, purchase alcoholic drinks and beverages. Many patrons become intoxicated and create much noise and confusion by talking, yelling, singing and laughing. When the patrons and dancers leave the premises many are intoxicated and much noise and disturbance is caused by starting their automobiles and blowing horns, yelling, singing and talking. Many of the patrons drive recklessly at great speed up and down Fern Creek Drive, endangering the lives of other people who may be upon the highway and disturb and annoy the residents of the community and these plaintiffs. The noise made by the orchestra, the patrons, dancers and cars is continuous from the time the orchestra begins to play until
it stops and can be heard plainly in the homes of the plaintiffs to such an extent that it seriously affects the comfort of the plaintiffs in their homes and prevents plaintiffs from sleeping at the time when it is customary for them to retire. The establishment and maintenance of the said bar room and dance pavilion greatly depreciates the value of the plaintiffs' homes for residential purposes and prevents the sale thereof at their real value. The operation and maintenance of the bar room and dance pavilion constitute a nuisance and should be enjoined. Plaintiffs pray for an injunction against the defendants' continuing and maintaining the said dance pavilion.
Filed: Jun. 13, 1935
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This case is before us on appeal from a final decree awarding injunction. The bill of complaint sought to enjoin the operation of a public dancing pavilion located on a certain lot in a rural subdivision. The findings and judgment were as follows: " One. That the Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this cause. " Two. That the equities are with the plaintiffs and against the defendants. " Three. That the operation of a dance hall or dance pavilion twice a week in the e
Summary: This case is before us on appeal from a final decree awarding injunction. The bill of complaint sought to enjoin the operation of a public dancing pavilion located on a certain lot in a rural subdivision. The findings and judgment were as follows: " One. That the Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this cause. " Two. That the equities are with the plaintiffs and against the defendants. " Three. That the operation of a dance hall or dance pavilion twice a week in the ev..
More
I think this case is a very good illustration of the good sense and fairness underlying the old legal maxim, to the effect that one should so use his own as not to injure another's property. Of course this is a broad and general rule which cannot be made to fit all cases, but I think this case comes within the spirit of it.
Source: CourtListener
