*438Dissenting ■ Opinion by
Mr. Justice Chidsey :I cannot agree with the opinion and order of the majority of this Court that a tourist court in a strictly residential neighborhood is not a nuisance per se. There is inherent in the opinion a failureDto give full effect to the findings of the chancellor, approved by the court en bane, and a serious challenge to the salutary holding of this Court in Bortz v. Troth, 359 Pa. 326, 59 A. 2d 93.
Appellants, on November 19, 1949, purchased three lots at the corner of Front and Yaughn Streets in the City of Harrisburg for the purpose of erecting a modern tourist court or inn. On March 2, 1950, a building permit was requested from the bureau of building inspection. Written application therefor was made on May 9, 1950. Property owners in the immediate neighborhood, appellees, on March 13, 1950, filed their bill of complaint in equity averring, inter alia, that the área in which the tourist court is proposed to be erected is exclusively residential in character, that the City of Harrisburg had authorized a zoning commission to prepare a zoning ordinance which, if adopted, would forbid erection of the proposed tourist court, that construction of the court' would cause irreparable damage to appellees, that a tourist court in a strictly residential neighborhood is a nuisance per se, and prayed that an injunction be issued temporarily pending hearing and permanently thereafter enjoining the erection of the proposed motor court. A rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted was entered.
Appellants, on March 17, 1950, filed their ánswer to the bill'of complaint admitting purchase and ownership of the land in question and application for- a building permit to authorize erection of a motor court on said land, but denying that the construction there*439of would cause irreparable damage to appellees, that the locality was strictly residential in character, and ■the proposed construction would constitute a nuisance in fact dr per se.
The chancellor, after three days of hearing, made the following findings of fact: The property in question is vacant land, consisting of lots 1, 2 and 3 on the plan of Vaughn Terrace. The lots are situate on the northeast corner of Front and Vaughn Streets in the City of Harrisburg, and’ extend from Vaughn Street to the northern city line and were purchased by appellants on November 19, 1949, for $20,000. No building restrictions, reservations, exceptions or conditions exist in the title, other than that no building for human-habitation should be erected within 15 feet of the .street or less than 15 feet wide, unless it faces a wider street. There is no zoning ordinance operative1 within the City of Harrisburg. There is a zoning ordinance in Susquehanna Township, which is contiguous to and adjoins the. premises on the northerly side. No new residences have been erected on Front Street , within several blocks of the lots in question during the last 12 to 15 years. Front Street, upon which appellants’ lots abut, has a continuous, heavy traffic rate at an established count of approximately 13,600 vehicles per day, many of which are heavy trucks. Operation of the proposed tourist court will be on a 24 hour, 7 day per week, 52 weeks per year, and 365 days per year basis .for daily transients only, and will be operated as ■sleeping, quarters: No gasoline, oil, soft drinks, soda *440water, food or accessories will be sold on or about the premises. A neon sign and bright illumination of the court will be in operation until approximately 11:30 p.m., after which safety lighting only will be maintained. All illumination will be designed to confine itself to the premises. Trucks and truckers will not be accommodated.
Front Street in the City of Harrisburg and north thereof is a multi-lane highway along the Susquehanna River. No buildings are erected between it and the river. Approximately four-tenths of a mile south of Yaughn Street is the former Harrisburg Academy site, now used by the Navy Reserve Corps Units. On thé northwest corner of Second and Lewis Streets, a block east and a block south of Front and Yaughn Streets, is a neighborhood drug store. On Front Street, a block and a half south of Yaughn Street, is a dwelling used as a, tourist home. With the exception of the above, there are no churches, schools or commercial establishments of any kind on Front or Second Streets for a distance of six-tenths of a mile north of Yaughn and nine-tenths of a mile south of Yaughn Street. All dwellings on Front Street are single family dwellings and on Second Street, are both one and two-family dwellings.
The Supervisors of Susquehanna Township have adopted a zoning ordinance, pursuant to which the two blocks immediately north of the City, the Bergner Farm and Montrose Park, are classified as R-l Residential, i.e., one-family residence to a lot. With the exception of appellants’ property and the former Harrisburg Academy property, the entire area along Front Street from Division Street on the south to Estherton on the north, being in Harrisburg and Susquehanna Township respectively, is restricted for residence purposes only. Ya.ughn Terrace and all lots fronting on *441Vaughn Street have single family residences erected thereon with a few vacant lpts remaining, three of which are the subject of this litigation.
The present fair market value of the majority of the residences in the immediate neighborhood range from $18,000 to $75,000. Several are residences of substantially greater value. The area includes some of the most expensive homes in the Harrisburg metropolitan area. Erection of the proposed tourist court will depreciate residential properties in the immediate neighborhood fifteen to twenty per cent, of their present fair market values. The land upon which appellants propose to erect a tourist court is in a strictly residential neighborhood. A 'tourist court cannot he operated without accompanying noises of banging car doors and trunks, and a certain amount of loud talking, all of which constitute an annoyance in the immediate neighborhood.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the court below concluded as a matter of law that a tourist court' in a strictly residential area is a nuisance per se, and enjoined appellants from erecting' the proposed tourist court.
Whether the locality here, involved is commercial, residential or strictly or predominately residential, and whether the proposed use within it would unreasonably infringe property rights of inhabitants thereof is a matter ordinarily resting within the sound discretion of the court below: Calvary Presbyterian Church v. Jones, 322 Pa. 77, 80, 185 A. 267, 268. Findings of a chancellor, affirmed by the court en banc, will be disturbed on appeal only when not supported by evidence or where arbitrarily and capriciously made: Essick v. Shillam, 347 Pa. 373, 32 A. 2d 416. Conclusions of law deduced from findings of fact are always the subject of judicial reviéw: Potter v. Brown, 328 Pa, 554, 195 A. *442901; Lineaweaver’s Estate, 284 Pa. 384, 131 A. 378. However, review of this record does not, in my opinion, reveal any abuse of discretion or any error of law.
True, as found by the chancellor Front Street is a much traveled highway with substantial use by heavy trucks. No new residences have been erected on it in the area of the several blocks in question during the last twelve or fifteen years. A tourist home is located at 3109 North Front Street, and a naval training center, formerly the Harrisburg Academy, is located north of Division Street. Front Street south of Division is in a transitional stage, changing from primarily residential to business or commercial. These facts do not, however, compel the conclusion that the immediate locality Avitli Avhich this case is concerned is in a transitional stage. More must be shoAvn. There must be evidence of inroads within the area immediately to be affected by the proposed use of the land. There must be shown a breaking down of existing boundaries and absence of an existing line of demarcation which would divide commercial from residential and residential from predominately or strictly residential localities.
With regard to restrictions upon use of the land beginning at Division Street and proceeding north within the City of Harrisburg, the following is shoAvn: Academy Manor, 89 lots, restricted for residential purposes; Riverside, 337 lots, restricted for residential purposes; Vaughn Terrace, 39 lots, not restricted but occupied exclusively by expensive residences with the exception of the northernmost three lots of this tract which are the subject of this litigation. The following restrictions exist on land in Susquehanna Township proceeding north from the City line: Bergner Farm, 222 lots, restricted for residential purposes and zoned for residential purposes only; Montrose Park, 134 lots, restricted for residential purposes and zoned, for residential purposes oniy.' Tkq foregoing lots occupy a dis*443tanee of several miles along Front Street and constitute the largest exclusively residential area in the City of Harrisburg' and adjoining Susquehanna Township.2
There has been no invasion of this exclusively residential district by commercial interests, nor has there been any change with' regard to its exclusively residential character. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that increased vehicular traffic over Front Street has effected any change in the character of the neighborhood. The advent of the automobile and change of use of highways together with change of streets from dirt and cobblestone to concrete and other smooth and durable surfaces, cannot now be asserted as a reason to deprive a district of its true residential character and owners and residents of their concomitant rights. Particularly is this true, wheie, as here, the evidence clearly establishes the locality to be strictly residential and not to have been invaded by business and commercial interests. Cf. Burke v. Hollinger, 296 Pa. 510, 521, 146 A. 115.
Existence of the Naval Training Center, a substitute for the old Harrisburg Academy, as regards use and characteristics, had not effected a disturbance of the peacé and quiet of the neighborhood, or a decrease in value of property. The development of the area as strictly residential about the Harrisburg Academy is strong and compelling evidence of this. Evidence that commercial interests have invaded the prior strictly residential area south of Division Street and effected a change of classification, cannot sustain a finding that the neighborhood to the north thereof has similarly changed. There is no occasion now to determine the limits of the strictly residential area. It is *444sufficient that there is no evidence of a change in the portion thereof material to the issue presented.
What was said by this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Patterson, in Boris v. Troth, supra, is peculiarly applicable here: “Boundaries there must be, which divide commercial from residential and residential from exclusively residential. Exclusively residential districts are not to be denied the benefit of principles of law and equity appertaining thereto because bordered by or proximate to districts termed commercial.” Clearly, the locality has been and presently remains strictly residential in character. It is not in a period or state of transition. The majority opinion permits the erection of the tourist court in the very heart of this highly residential neighborhood.
Appellants contend and a majority of this Court hold that the conclusion that “a tourist court in a strictly residential area is a nuisance per se” is an error of law. It is said that the findings of fact that the tourist court will be a one-story inn of modern and attractive design, that it will be operated as sleeping quarters only for transient guests, that neither gasoline, oil, soft drinks, food or accessories will be sold on or about the premises, that no trucks or truckers will be accommodated, that after 11:30 p.m. only safety-lighting will be maintained, such illumination to be designed to confine itself to the premises, and that there will be parking space for a maximum of 25 cars, compel a contrary conclusion. It is argued that the purpose of the tourist court is to provide sleep for transient guests and of necessity requires for its success.-, ful operation surroundings conducive to sleep and a minimization of possible annoyance and discomfort- to. guests, with the corresponding minimization of possible annoyance and discomfort to residents in homes adjacent thereto: It'is fúrthér'urged that noise’ emanating.'from -the- interspersed'’ arrival and departure ' of *445guests cannot, in view of the already prevalent traffic noise, warrant a finding of a nuisance as a matter of law.
I am firmly of opinion that operation of a tourist court in a strictly residential area does constitute a nuisance per se. The purpose is to rent rooms by night to transients. There will be parking of cars in the evening and at night during the time residents of the area are entitled to the greatest degree of quiet and privacy. The principal business of a tourist court is not transacted during what are commonly known as “business hours” of the day. Guests will leave on errands and return. There will be the intermittent annoying glare of headlights with each arrival and departure. Bright lights necessary to attract transients will remain lighted until 11:30 p.m., and safety lighting will continue through the night. If vacancies exist, motorists will be received without regard to the particular hour. Departures will undoubtedly occur in the early hours of the morning. There will be the starting of motors and the banging of doors and trunks. There will be a certain amount of loud talking and calling among patrons of the tourist court. The majority opinion holds that these results “are neither inevitable nor likely.” These things, in my opinion, are inevitable and their disastrous effect upon the peace and quiet of an exclusively residential neighborhood should be readily recognized and fully evaluated. Common experience of mankind, of which this Court takes judicial notice, proves this to be the result. See Ladner v. Siegel. 293 Pa. 306, 311, 142 A. 272. Particularly is this true where, as here, the tourist court is proposed to be erected, as stated, in the very heart of such neighborhood. Imposition of additional annoyances attendant upon operation of a tourist court as regards arrival and departure of guests certainly cannot be justified by assertion of a possible annoyance resulting from traffic *446upon Front Street. Cf. Boris v. Troth, supra. Nor can same be justified, by suggesting a “tremendous convenience to automobile travelers.”
Residents of the immediate neighborhood will not only be deprived of the peace and quiet to which they are entitled, but erection of the tourist court would have a decided adverse effect upon the value of their property. The evidence amply sustains the finding of the chancellor that upon erection of the tourist court the present market value of residences in the immediate neighborhood would depreciate in value from fifteen to twenty per eent. The majority has failed to give any effect to this finding.
Having due regard to the nature, type and proximity of dwellings, the effect upon property valuation, and other circumstances tending to establish a type of neighborhood, it clearly appears that the court below properly concluded that the neighborhood and locality in which appellants propose to erect a tourist court and conduct the business of operating the same is strictly residential and not in a transitional stage, and that a tourist court in such neighborhood would constitute a nuisance per se. Reasonable grounds exist to believe that the proposed use will constituté a nuisance and it is reasonably certain that irreparable harm will be visited upon complainants by the threatened acts. See Todd v. Sablosky, 339 Pa. 504, 512, 15 A. 2d 677; Edmunds v. Duff, 280 Pa. 355, 124 A. 489.
I would affirm the decree of the court below and declare the law of this Commonwealth to be that a tourist court in a strictly residential neighborhood is a nuisance per se.
Mr. Justice Ladner joins in this dissenting opinion.A zoning ordinance in course of preparation at the time of the chancellor’s finding was . subsequently passed in October of 1950 restricting the area which includes the lots'here involved to single family, detached dwellings, churches,' schools, libraries, gov-erhment buildings and parks. - ‘ - ■ • •, ■ ■ -
Concern as to its preservation as such is evidenced by the zoning ordinance which was passed,- referred to in footnote 1, supra.