*1 paid person They every or bill check direct corporation rendering and Enderlin; to Mrs. the service original in evidence all of were introduced checks private transcript us. course and are in the before Of expensive hospital than is such is more and medical care Hospital. Certainly hos- doctors, at the service State pitals, druggist nursing not have been and would home, paid by until the claimants these claimants unless and charges. It ill of such were satisfied as to the fairness to care for and who failed son, becomes the husband paid lady, amounts this unfortunate good faith for her sisters. her two

Affirmed. et al v. Rock

Olsen 5-3938 406 W. 2d 706

Opinion 10, 1966 delivered October Wright, Lindsey Jennings, Philip & 8. Anderson Jr., appellant. for Joseph Kemp Perry G. Whitmore, V.

pellee. George Rose Justice. This is a suit Smith, appellants compel of Little Rock to rezone Eighteenth at 401 West Street. The lot nse. residential restricted is now *2 city’s bodies the landowners’ The application administrative denied Apart- “D” the lot to

to have reclassified upholding a from decree ment use. This city’s decision. sustain

In a case of this kind the chancellor should arbitrary. city’s it to be action unless he finds question, way matter which the chancellor decides the against only his decree if find it to be we reverse preponderance Little Rock v. of the evidence. (1962). Ark. 2d 116 In this Garner, 235 360 W. opinion against that the decree is instance we are of the preponderance evidence. Spring separated by lot Street The grounds surrounding Mansion Governor’s position public’s city’s that took the The witnesses protected should be investment in the Mansion could and by restricting property a of its all half block within (There grounds are a few ex- use. nonconforming ceptions plan, owing structures to this Mansion.) that antedated the construction of the attempt city’s Manion must be to shelter the The weighed counterarguments against toward three city’s proof. First, directed their the landowners fusal to rezone the lot upon imposes hardship a financial unimpor- point the landowners. testimony say only that that indicates tant. We need two-story lot cannot, the vacant house now on the profit- plaintiffs’ investment, be view of the size of the present zoning ably reconditioned or remodeled if the restrictions are continued. sup- completed study in 1963 a disinterested

Second, ports study was made contentions. experts professional planning representing city by metropolitan a section as the area. involved as well comprising bounded blocks, about hundred and Cumberland. 'Chester, Fourteenth, Roosevelt, question, the section was that reached conclusion Bock, to downtown nearness in view of its density greater permit extensively rezoned be significantly, Specifically and population in the area. all report recommended made that was grounds be reclassi- surrounding Mansion recommenda- Most of the use. fied to appear but followed to have been tions the ordi- some not disclosed reason pro- adopted provided for the eventually nance surrounding Man- two-family residential belt tective grounds. sion *3 protective necessity belt

Third, both the question. open to serious and its are effectiveness old residential dis- section is a forty large built or more houses trict, characterized proximity owing years ago. to the to its district, longer attractive to of is no commercial center the keep big having in such homes owners the means to Consequently boarding houses and condition. first-class enterprises becoming are more similar semi-commercial pretty that the numerous. clear more from the intru- Governor’s Mansion would suffer the construction sion of such establishments than from apartments relatively of small which alone are those permitted under the classification. proposed rezoning adversely af- will not the complete neighborhood ab- is confirmed fect protest part any sence of on of other landowners apparently acquiescence in the the area. universal Such proposal decidedly Moreover, unusual in cases. Attorney a continuance in the court General obtained State, below him to whether the as to enable decide protest Mansion, of owner protest quest. made. It is fair to conclude that was group neighboring property none of the owners—the greatest damage if reclassifi- who would suffer oppose public contrary cation is to the interest — plaintiffs’ petition. Upon are the record as whole we weight of lies on convinced the evidence pellants’ side.

Reversed. J.,

Ward, dissents. dissenting. legis- In Justice, 1924 the Paul Ward, passed (Ark. 19-2804) lature Act 6 Ann. § Stat. says: recognized hereby “It declared that beauty surroundings of constitutes valuable right protected by which should be . law ...” To car- ry City out this wholesome mandate the of Little Rock provides composed Planning for a Commission zoning. Anyone aggrieved trained men by field of appeal City this Commission’s action can Chancery Board Directors, and then to Court. In the case under consideration the Commission subject property, twice refused to rezone the twice refused to overrule the Commission, and Chancery Court refused relief. On to this Court guided plainly rule which we are to be stated, ago, year less than a North Little Rock v. Habrle, 239 Ark. 2d 751: S. W. *4 resolving

“In this conflict we cannot our substitute judgment for that of the authorities. We uphold say must unless decision we can arbitrary capricious.” it is arbitrary In that case also defined word as “de- cisive and unreasoned.” nothing opinion majority

I find or in conscientiously say from I record can the Com- arbitrarily attempting mission and acted protect “beauty” “surroundings” Certainly Governor’s Mansion. their actions cannot be called unreasoned.