Court Opinion

ID: 9665047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:37:58.394584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:12.522460
License: Public Domain

Gailor, Justice
(dissenting).
I' am forced to dissent from the majority opinion. In my view, the doctrine of ejusdem generis has no application to a proper construction of the ordinance under consideration. That doctrine simply stated is that in a contract or statute where a series of specific terms concludes *509with. ,a general term, that the general term shall, in its con-strnction, he limited to the kind (genns) of the enumerated special terms. There is no such language in- the ordinance before us here.
The defendant is using the property in controversy for a one-family dwelling as permitted by sub-section 1 of the ordinance, and under sub-section 9, as an incident of such use as a one-family dwelling, defendant is using his front yard for his hobby, which is the assembling and disassembling of automobiles.
Sub-section 9, which permits “uses customarily incident to any of the specified uses” does not undertake to specify what uses are customarily incident to the main use. As to whether or not the assembling and disassembling is a use customarily incident to use as a one-family dwelling, the ordinance is silent and ambiguous. 'Since the ordinance is in derogation of the common law right of free use by the property owner, it will not be extended by implication, and doubts will be resolved against the City and in favor of the property owner. Red Acres Imp. Club v. Burkhalter, 193 Tenn. 84, 241 S. W. (2d) 921.
In my view, the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.