## Facts

- Six homeowners in Gurdon, Arkansas lived near a house known as the “Taylor place” in a neighborhood they characterized as residential.
- The defendants planned to remodel the Taylor place for use as a combined residence and funeral home (undertaking parlor).
- Nearby homeowners objected and offered to reimburse the defendants for preliminary expenses to prevent the project.
- The homeowners filed an equity action seeking to enjoin the funeral home before it began operating, alleging it would impair residential enjoyment and property values due to its association with death.
- The chancery court denied an injunction, reasoning the area was not “exclusively residential.”
- The homeowners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a funeral home may be enjoined as a nuisance in equity when proposed for an essentially residential neighborhood, based on interference with residents’ comfort and repose despite the absence of physically offensive conditions.
2. Whether a neighborhood’s lack of perfect “exclusive residential” character bars injunctive relief against a funeral home.
3. Whether prompt, pre-operation objection supports equitable relief to prevent establishment of the funeral home.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the decree denying relief.
- The court held the homeowners were entitled to an injunction preventing establishment of the funeral home at the proposed location.
- The case was remanded with directions to grant injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A use may constitute a nuisance in a residential area even if not physically offensive, where it substantially interferes with the comfort and repose ordinarily sought in home ownership.
- Equity may protect residential neighborhoods from land uses whose primary harm is nonphysical (including mental distress and aesthetic disruption) when that interference would affect ordinarily sensitive residents.
- A funeral home may be enjoined when it intrudes into an essentially residential district because its continuous association with death can materially disrupt residential enjoyment.
- The residential character of an area is assessed in substance and appearance; minor incidental nonresidential uses do not necessarily defeat a finding that the district is essentially residential.
- Timely action—objecting and suing before the business is established—supports injunctive relief and avoids reliance interests that can weigh against an injunction.

## Conclusion

The court ordered an injunction barring the proposed funeral home, holding that in an essentially residential neighborhood the nonphysical disruption caused by a mortuary’s constant association with death can amount to an enjoinable nuisance when residents object promptly.


Powell v. Taylor, 222 Ark. 896, 263 S.W.2d 906 (Ark. 1954)