17 Mo.App. 605 (Mo.App. 1885), Griffith v. Lewis
|Citation:||17 Mo.App. 605|
|Opinion Judge:||THOMPSON, J.|
|Party Name:||T. J. P. GRIFFITH ET AL., Plaintiffs in Error, v. M. D. LEWIS, Administrator, Defendant in Error.|
|Attorney:||DANIEL MCGOWAN and A. R. TAYLOR, for the plaintiff in error: EDWARD WHITE, for the defendant in error:|
|Case Date:||May 05, 1885|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
ERROR to the St. Louis Circuit Court, LUBKE, J.
Reversed and remanded.
This was an action for damages for a nuisance. At the close of the plaintiff's testimony the court directed the jury that the plaintiff could not recover.
The substantial averments of the petition were that the plaintiff, Mrs. Griffith, was the owner of certain premises in the city of St. Louis; that the defendant's intestate, Mrs. Mulford, " was on or about the 15th day of February, 1880, and for a long time before and ever since till the time of her death, hereinafter mentioned, the owner and in possession of a lot of ground immediately adjoining and abutting against the above described premises; that on said lot of ground is erected a tenement house with a privy vault which is sunk at great depth in the ground; and that by old age and long usage, it became worn out, leaky, and dilapidated, defective and out of repair * * *; that defendant knowingly maintained the privy vault upon said lot in said condition, and wantonly and intentionally permitted it to remain full of water, excrement, and filth. That said tenement house, with the nuisance on said lot, was rented out, from time to time and from month to month, to tenants by said defendant" (meaning the defendant's intestate, Mrs. Mulford, and the defendant, J. E. Kaime, her agent as to whom the suit was subsequently dismissed). Then, after an averment touching the condemnation of the premises as a nuisance by the Board of Health under an ordinance of the city, the petition further avers " that, on or about the 15th day of June, 1882, and for a long time before and ever since, till about the 15th day of March, 1883, the foul water and filth of said privy vault as aforesaid, percolating and siping through the ground of said defendant and through the walls of the plaintiff's dwelling house and hotel and into the cellar and basement and ascending therein to the height of several feet, and thereby causing the walls of said house and hotel to be greatly weakened, split, and fractured and the floor of said basement and cellar to be rotted; that by reason of the unwholesome vapor arising from the foul and stagnant water in said cellar and basement and ascending in and around said premises, the health of the plaintiff's, of their family, and of the inmates of their house and hotel has been and is greatly impaired and injured and the business of said plaintiffs in consequence thereof has suffered great loss. Wherefore, by reason of said loss and injuries to plaintiffs they were and are damaged in the sum of two thousand dollars for which sum plaintiffs ask judgment."
The answer of the defendants was a general denial.
According to the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP