Central Iron & Coal Co. v. Vanderheurk
Decision Date | 28 April 1906 |
Citation | 147 Ala. 546,41 So. 145 |
Parties | CENTRAL IRON & COAL CO. v. VANDERHEURK. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Tuscaloosa County; Alfred H. Benners Chancellor.
"To be officially reported."
Suit by J. W. Vanderheurk against the Central Iron & Coal Company. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Henry A. Jones, for appellant.
Vaughan & Davidson and Smith & Smith, for appellee.
It is an elementary principle in reference to private rights that every individual is entitled to the undisturbed possession and enjoyment of his own property. The mode of enjoyment is necessarily limited by the rights of others; otherwise, it might be made destructive to their rights altogether. In the case of Hay v. Cohoes, 2 N. Y. 159, 51 Am. Dec. 279 where the declaration charged that by the defendant and its agents and servants, while constructing a canal on their own premises, which they had the right and authority to do, large quantities of gravel, slate, and stone were thrown upon plaintiff's lands, the court said: Alfred's Case, 9 Coke, 58. And it would seem that one who makes a blast on his own land, and thereby causes rock to fall upon the lands of another, or upon one on the highway, is liable as a trespasser for injuries inflicted, although the blast is fired for a lawful purpose and without negligence or want of skill. Sullivan, Adm'r, v. Dunham, 161 N.Y. 290, 55 N.E. 923, 47 L. R. A. 715, 76 Am. St. Rep. 274; People's Gas Co. v. Tyner (Ind. Sup.) 31 N.E 59, 16 L. R. A. 443, 31 Am. St. Rep. 433.
It is true that the bill avers that the rocks were thrown on complainant's premises because of the negligent manner of blasting, and the undisputed evidence of respondents is that there was no negligent blasting; yet the bill avers that the rocks were constantly thrown on complainant's premises and this fact was proven by his witnesses, and was contradicted only by circumstances and inferences. The complainant, consequently, made out a case for equitable relief, although he fails to prove that the blasting was negligently done, which was merely cumulative, and the nonexistence of which could not defeat the bill. Noble's Adm'r v. Moses, 81 Ala. 530, 1 So. 217, 60 Am. Rep. 175....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howell v. City of Dothan
... ... Jones, ... 202 Ala. 82, 79 So. 476, L.R.A.1918F, 1020; Central Iron ... & Coal Co. v. Vandenheuk, 147 Ala. 546, 41 So. 145, 6 ... ...
-
Rice v. Davidson
... ... Franklin v ... Long, 191 Ala. 310, 315, 68 So. 149; Consumers' Coal ... & Fuel Co. v. Yarbrough, 194 Ala. 482, 491, ... [89 So. 601] Bond ... Co., 198 ... Ala. 236, 73 So. 486, L.R.A.1917C, 232; South. Iron & Eq ... Co. v. Vaughan, 201 Ala. 356, 78 So. 212, L.R.A.1918E, ... remedy (Central I. & C. Co. v. Vandenheuk, 147 Ala ... 546, 41 So. 145, 6 L.R.A.[ N.S] ... ...
-
Harper v. Regency Development Co., Inc.
...276 Ala. 110, 159 So.2d 621 (1963); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Grace, 274 Ala. 653, 151 So.2d 229 (1963); Central Iron & Coal Co. v. Vandenheuk, 147 Ala. 546, 41 So. 145 (1906).3 See, e. g., Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Dobbins, 282 Ala. 513, 213 So.2d 246 (1968); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Grac......
-
Woodstock Operating Corp. v. Quinn
... ... Mobile Co. v. Knapp, 75 So. 881; Cent. Iron & ... Coal Co. v. Vandenheuk, 147 Ala. 546, 41 So. 145, 6 ... L.R.A ... In Central Iron & Coal Co. v. Vandenheuk, 147 Ala ... 546, 41 So. 145, 6 L.R.A ... ...