Hughes, &C., v. General Electric Light and Power Company
| Decision Date | 06 January 1900 |
| Citation | 107 Ky. 485 |
| Parties | Hughes, Etc. v. General Electric Light and Power Company. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM M'CRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.
GREER & REED FOR THE APPELLANTS.
HENRY BURNETT FOR APPELLEE.
JUDGE BURNAM DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The appellant Kate E. Hughes became the owner, on the 11th day of June, 1895, of a dwelling house, and the lot of ground on which it was situated, in Paducah, Kentucky. The adjacent lot was occupied by the power house of appellee, who manufactured the electricity used in the operation of the Paducah Street Railway, and by the electric light company of that city.
On the 24th day of February, 1897, she instituted this suit against the appellee to recover a judgment for $2,000, for damages alleged to have been done to her property by the negligent and careless operation, both by day and night, of appellee's plant. She alleged that, after she became the owner of the house and lot, appellee extended its plant in the direction of, and in close proximity to her house, by the erection of additional boilers, engines, dynamos, and other heavy machinery used in the manufacture of electricity, that continuously large quantities of smoke and soot escaped from the smokestacks of appellee's plant, and was thrown upon her residence, greatly injuring its appearance, and destroying the wearing apparel used by the occupants who resided therein; that the operation of appellee's plant caused her residence to jar and vibrate, the plastering to crack, and the windows and doors to shake and rattle, and that it caused the water used in the operation of the machinery to flow across and upon her lot, where it would stand, and gradually soak into the earth, making it unhealthy and offensive; that it had piled up hot ashes against her fence in vast quantities, and would throw water thereon, which caused obnoxious odors to be emitted therefrom, — all of which acts materially damaged the rental and salable value of her property.
Appellee controverted all of the affirmative allegations of the petition, and, the pleadings being made up, a trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and upon this appeal a number of alleged errors occurring upon the trial of the case in the court below are relied on for reversal.
First, it is complained that the court erred in refusing to permit plaintiff to prove that other dwellings in that vicinity were similarly affected. The plaintiff sought in this action to recover damages for injuries to her house, and it is the effect upon that house, and not others, that was properly the subject of investigation. Even if it had been shown that the operation of appellee's plant had the effect to damage other property in the neighborhood, that would have been no ground for recovery in this case, and the court properly limited the inquiry to the effect upon the property of appellant.
Another ground of objection is that the court allowed appellee to plead and prove that it had determined to move the machinery from its plant from the lot adjacent to appellant during the next spring, and confined the proof to the damages to her property between the date of its acquisition and the institution of this suit.
A subsequent purchaser of premises injured by a nuisance erected previous to his purchase has no remedy for the injury thereto occasioned by such nuisance previous to his acquisition thereof. (See 3 Sedgwick on Damages, section 949.)
And the general rule is that a plaintiff can only recover compensation for injury to real estate done up to the commencement of his action, unless the injury complained of is of a permanent and enduring character. In that instance, it has been frequently held by this court that a single recovery...
To continue reading
Request your trial