Plaintiffs’ bill asks that defendants be enjoined from establishing and maintaining an automobile filling, sales and service statiоn at the corner of North Fifth and Oley Streets in the City of Reading, which location is within a district claimed by plaintiffs to be strictly residential in character, and in which they own property, and with their families reside. A decree was entered perpetually enjoining defendants from establishing the service station as propоsed at the location designated. Defendants appealed.
The court below finds as facts thаt the neighborhood in question “constitutes an exclusively residential district built up with dwellings set back from the building lines of streets and surrounded by spaces affording light and air, said houses being with few exceptions occupied by their owners respectively with their families, and constituting together a quiet, beautiful and desirable neighborhoоd for families to dwell in.” And that “The establishment of defendants’ proposed public gas filling and sales and service station within said district, even though it be at the edge thereof, is unsuited to the neighborhood and would constitutе a nuisance per se.” The *210 testimony taken at the hearings had before the court, as appеars by the record, convincingly supports these findings. One witness testified he purchased property in this particular neighborhood because of its “tranquillity” and because the section was “exclusively residentiаl”; another that he removed from a different locality to Oley Street owing to annoyances incidеnt to the erection across the street from his former home of a filling and service station.
Appellants’ claim that the adjoining section of the city оn the opposite side of North Fifth Street from the properties of plaintiffs is not strictly residential and bеcomes less so as it approaches the railroad two blocks away, has little weight, in view of thе court’s finding, sustained by evidence, that apartment dwellings and private homes are far predominant in thаt part of the street until it reaches a point where it parallels the railroad tracks: Burke v. Hollinger,
The decree of the court below is affirmed at cost of appellants.