Adams v. Michael

• Decision Date: 30 May 1873
• Parties: JOHN F. ADAMS and SAMUEL H. ADAMS v. ALEXANDER D. MICHAEL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

38 Md. 123

JOHN F. ADAMS and SAMUEL H. ADAMS v. ALEXANDER D. MICHAEL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 30, 1873

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was submitted on briefs to BARTOL, C.J., STEWART BOWIE, BRENT, MILLER and ALVEY, J.

J Alex. Preston, for the appellants,

Referred to the following authorities: Mayor, &c., of Frederick vs. Groshon, 30 Md., 436; Hamilton vs. Whitridge, et al., 11 Md., 136, 137, 147; City of Georgetown vs. Alexandria Canal Company, 12 Peters, 91; Dennis vs Echardt, 2 Am. Law Reg., (N. S.) 169; Corning vs. Lowerre, 6 Johns. Ch., 439; Milhau vs. Sharp, 28 Barb., 228; Hilliard on Injunctions, 302; Kerr on Injunctions, 360, 361; (Ed. of 1871.)

No appearance for the appellee.

ALVEY J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, an application is made for an injunction to restrain the defendant from erecting a factory for the manufacture of felt-roofing, in the immediate vicinity of certain valuable dwelling-houses, the property of the complainants, and which factory, if allowed to be erected and put into operation will, it is alleged, become a nuisance, specially injurious to the complainants.

It is alleged, that, owing to the dirt, odor, smoke, and appurtenances of such factory, together with the inflammable nature of the material used in the manufacture of felt-roofing, the property of the complainants would be utterly destroyed as dwellings, and that "one of your orators would be deprived of the comforts of his home, and the health of his family would be impaired by the nuisance as aforesaid." The complainants further allege, "that irreparable and continuing injury to their property and the value thereof, and to their just enjoyment of the same, will result from the erection and carrying on of the said manufacturing business as aforesaid." These are the only allegations in reference to the nature and effect of the alleged contemplated nuisance. Nothing more specific is to be found in the bill.

The Court below refused the injunction, and from its order this appeal is taken.

There is no question or difficulty in regard to the principle invoked by the complainants in this case. The power to interfere by injunction to restrain a party from so using his own property as to destroy or materially prejudice the rights of his neighbor, and thus to enforce the maxim, " sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas,'DD' is not only a well established jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, but is one of great utility, and which is constantly exercised. Indeed, without such jurisdiction, parties would, in many cases, suffer the greatest wrongs, for which actions at law would afford them no adequate redress. It is not every inconvenience, however, in the nature of a nuisance to a party's dwelling, especially in a large commercial and manufacturing city, that will call forth the restraining power of a Court of Chancery by injunction. To justify an injunction to restrain an existing or threatened nuisance to a dwelling-house, the injury must be shown to be of such a character as to diminish materially the value of the property as a dwelling, and seriously interfere with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of it. Unless such a case is presented a Court of Chancery does not interfere. It must appear to be a case of real injury, and where a court of law would award substantial damages. Walter vs. Selfe, 4 De G. & Sm., 323; Jackson vs. Duke of Newcastle, 33 L. J., ch. 698; Soltan vs. De Held, 2 Sim. N. S., 159; Kerr on Inj., 350. Where, however, such is shown to be the case, the power of the Court is clear, and it will interpose by injunction.

Now, it is certainly true that the owners or occupiers of dwelling houses, whether in the city or country, have the right to enjoy pure and wholesome air, that is, as pure and wholesome as their local situation can reasonably supply; and any act which materially corrupts or pollutes the air, done without authority or justification, is strictly a nuisance. Aldred's case, 9 Co. R., 58. If therefore, a party should erect a manufacturing establishment in immediate proximity to the dwellings of his neighbors, and in the operation of which, large volumes of smoke, offensive odors, and noxious vapors are emitted, whereby the comfort of the occupiers of the dwellings is materially interfered with, it would certainly present a case requiring the exercise of the restraining or preventive power of a Court of Chancery. This has been decided in numerous cases, and the principle of the decisions as applicable to a case like the present, is very fully and clearly stated by Lord ROMILLY, M. R., in the recent case of Crump vs. Lambert, 15 W. R., 417. In that case, the plaintiff was the owner of two semi-detached houses in the outskirts of the town of Walsall, together with a garden in front of them, and was the occupier of one of the houses and the garden. The defendant, a manufacturer of iron bedsteads, erected a new factory adjoining the wall of the plaintiff's garden, in which the whole process of the business, including the smelting of pigs of iron, was carried on. This subjecting the plaintiff to annoyance, he applied to have the defendant restrained, and alleged three causes of injury to the...