Bonnell v. Smith

• Citation: 5 N.W. 128,53 Iowa 281
• Parties: BONNELL v. SMITH & BRO.
• Decision Date: 08 April 1880
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

53 Iowa 281

5 N.W. 128

BONNELL

v.SMITH & BRO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 8, 1880.

Appeal from Lee district court.

Action for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of a nuisance committed in the use of a certain building as a slaughter-house. The building in question is in the city of Fort Madison, and is located about 187 feet from the plaintiff's residence. The defendants admit the use of the building for a slaughter-house, but deny that it constitutes a nuisance. There was a trial by jury, and verdict was rendered for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.Casey & Hobbs and Miller & Son, for appellant.

Van Valkenberg & Hamilton and Craig & Collier, for appellees.

ADAMS, C. J.

1. The plaintiff asked an instruction which is in these words: “The defendants, at the time they erected their house and commenced business, are presumed to have known the effect the use of it would produce upon the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and himself and family; and they must be presumed to have intended that which they might have reasonably supposed would follow, and to have assumed the responsibility of it. The erection of the slaughter-house of the defendants, if with the intention or presumed knowledge that the use of the same would result injuriously to the plaintiff, was of itself a wrongful act.” The court refused to give this instruction, and the refusal is assigned as error.

Upon the question as to whether an act constitutes a nuisance, it is not necessary to inquire into the intention of the person doing the act. The best intentions cannot prevent an act from being a nuisance where it otherwise is such, and the worst intentions cannot make an act a nuisance where it otherwise is not. The intention might, to be sure, be a proper subject of inquiry upon the question of exemplary damages. But the instruction does not appear to have been asked with that view, nor, under the finding of the jury that there was no nuisance, could it, if it had been so asked, be deemed material.

2. The plaintiff assigns as error the giving of an instruction in these words: “Testimony of witnesses who have no interest in the result of the suit, of equal credibility otherwise, is entitled to more weight than the testimony of interested witnesses.” The statute allows the interest of a witness to be shown, if it does not otherwise appear, for the purpose of lessening the witness' credibility. The fact of interest, then, is to be considered by the jury as...