Collins v. Wayne Iron Works
| Citation | 227 Pa. 326,76 A. 24 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
| Docket Number | 306 |
| Parties | Collins v. Wayne Iron Works, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Argued February 8, 1910
Appeal, No. 306, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from decree of C.P. Delaware Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 41, on bill in equity in case of Susan Collins v. Wayne Iron Works. Decree modified.
Bill in equity for an injunction. Before JOHNSON, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
E. H Hall and John G. Johnson, with them John B. Hannum, for appellant. -- Private citizens have no right of action either in law or equity for the suppression of a public nuisance unless on averring and proving special damage to themselves Mechling v. Kittanning Bridge Co., 1 Grant, 416; Robinson v. Gerrity, 7 Lacka. 383.
Where restrictions in a deed interfere with the free use of the land conveyed the law's interpretation is strict and any doubt will be resolved against the restriction: Warbrick v. May, 2 W.N.C. 117; Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448; Gowen v. O'Hara, 15 Pa. Dist. Rep. 753.
V. Gilpin Robinson, with him Arthur B. Huey and Henry N. Smaltz, for appellee. -- The noisy operation of appellant's plant is a nuisance, having regard to the character of the neighborhood in which the plant is located: Baltimore & Potomac R.R. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U.S. 317 (2 S.Ct. Repr. 719); Penna. R.R. Co. v. Angel, 41 N.J. Eq. 316 (7 A. Repr. 432); Robb v. Carnegie, 145 Pa. 324; Dallas v. Decorative Art Club, 4 Pa. C.C. Rep. 340; Harrison v. St. Mark's Church, 12 Phila. 259; Rushmer v. Polsue, L.R. (1906) 1 Ch. Div. 234; Huckenstine's App., 70 Pa. 102; Rodenhausen v. Craven, 141 Pa. 546; Penna. Lead Co.'s App., 96 Pa. 116; Osthaus v. Robinson, 12 Pa. Dist. Rep. 25.
The nuisance works a special damage to the complainant, and the complainant's averment of damage was sufficient: Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. Doyle, 73 N.J. Law, 521 (64 A. Repr. 156); Wesson v. Washburn Iron Co., 95 Mass. 95.
The use violated the restrictions in the deed: Landell v. Hamilton, 175 Pa. 327; Rowland v. Miller, 139 N.Y. 93 (34 N.E. Repr. 765); Tod-Heatly v. Benham, L.R. 40 Ch. Div. 80; Gowen v. O'Hara, 15 Pa. Dist. Rep. 753; De Gray v. Monmouth Beach Club House Co., 50 N.J. Eq. 329 (24 A. Repr. 388); Bimson v. Bultman, 3 App.Div. (N.Y.) 198; Clark v. Martin, 49 Pa. 289; Electric City Land, etc., Co. v. Coal Co., 187 Pa. 500; Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige Ch. (N.Y.) 351; Birdsall v. Tiemann, 12 How. Pr. (N.Y.) 551; Gilford v. Babies' Hospital, 21 Abbott's New Cases, 159; Elliotson v. Fleetham, 2 Bing. (N.C.) 134; Scott v. Firth, 10 L.T. (N.S.) 240; Inchbald v. Robinson, L.R. 4 Ch. App. 388; Rogers v. Elliott, 146 Mass. 349 (15 N.E. Repr. 768).
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The plaintiff below, appellee here, filed a bill against the defendant below, appellant here, alleging a nuisance from the noise created by the operation of defendant's works.
The plaintiff's house is in a suburban residential section within less than 354 feet of a four-track railroad over which at this point about 160 trains are operated between 7 A.M. and 7 P.M. each day. The defendant's iron works are located in a strip of land lying between the residence of the plaintiff and the railroad. This strip of land is unsuited for residential purposes. It had been in use for industrial business purposes before the plaintiff erected her house in 1899, and has been so used ever since. The defendant's plant has grown up since 1902 without protest from the plaintiff until the filing of the bill. The noise complained of was greatly increased in the summer of 1906, and the bill was filed in the following December. The defendant employs from fifty to one hundred men; its plant is worth $50,000; and it does a business approximating $200,000 a year. There has not been any depreciation in the value of the plaintiff's property. The price of the property in 1899 was $7,800, and the plaintiff now values it at $10,000. Since the filing of the bill the plaintiff has removed from the neighborhood, and has rented her property for one year at $60.00 per month. She did not have any difficulty in securing a tenant, and there is no evidence that the tenant has made any complaint of annoyance from defendant's works.
The complaint averred in the bill is: "The said defendant has so wrongfully and injuriously conducted and used the said buildings and machinery therein, and so wrongfully and injuriously operated the said compressed air drills, hammers, riveting machines and other appliances therein maintained that a noise, continuous during said operation and unusual in quality and volume, is produced by the said defendant in its operation of said Iron Works," and "that such operation with such distressing results to your orator is unnecessary and avoidable." The learned court below found: "The noises of which complaint is made are not reasonably endurable or bearable, and render the dwelling of complainant during the operation of said iron works uncomfortable and unfit for use as the residence of a reasonable and normal person." The following decree was entered: "It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that you, Wayne Iron Works, your servants, agents and employees do abate the nuisance complained of in said bill, and you are hereby enjoined and restrained from the operation of your works by at any time making noises with air drills, power hammers, power chippers, riveting machines or other tools or apparatus so as to render the premises of the plaintiff described in the said bill unfit for use and enjoyment as a residence by a reasonable and normal person."
The defendant contends: first, that the decree does not specifically point out the things that it is required to do or to refrain from doing in order to abate the nuisance which the court found to exist; and, second, that the evidence in the case does not justify such a sweeping decree as the one entered.
The entry of an injunction is, in some respects, analogous to the publication of a penal statute; it is a notice that certain things must be done or not done, under a penalty to be fixed by the court: Sullivan v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., 222 Pa. 72. Such a decree should be as definite clear and precise in its terms as possible, so that there may be no reason or excuse for misunderstanding or disobeying it; and when practicable it should plainly indicate to the defendant all of the acts which he is restrained from doing, without calling upon him for inferences or conclusions about which persons may well differ. In the present instance, the only definite thing that the defendant is ordered to do is "to abate the nuisance complained of in said bill." As the evidence does not show any improper or negligent operation of the machinery, and as the defendant's conclusion as to what constitutes "a reasonable and normal person" may well differ from that of the plaintiff, it would seem that the only safe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Wayne Iron Works
... 76 A. 24227 Pa. 326 COLLINS v. WAYNE IRON WORKS. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Feb. 21, 1910. 76 A. 24 Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County. Bill by Susan Collins against the Wayne Iron Works. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed. Argued before ......