Conway v. Gampel
| Decision Date | 01 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 16.,16. |
| Citation | 209 N.W. 562,235 Mich. 511 |
| Parties | CONWAY et al. v. GAMPEL et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Ira W. Jayne, Judge.
Suit by Charles G. Conway and others against Alter Gampel and another. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench. Wm. Henry Gallagher, of Detroit (Wm. H. Kaplan, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
Stevenson, Butzel, Eaman & Long, of Detroit (Rolla L. Carpenter, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees.
Defendant Gampel owns a dwelling at 650 Leicester court, Detroit. It is in a strictly residential district; most of the lots in that particular locality being restricted of record. Defendant put up a small building on the rear of his lot. It was at first thought by neighbors to be a garage. Later it proved to be a slaughter house, and defendant there conducts his business of slaughtering fowls. Plaintiffs are resident owners of dwellings in the immediate neighborhood. Some dwellings are close to the place, and five or six are within 200 feet.
The bill seeks injunction on these grounds: Violation of ordinance of the city, violation of general plan of building restrictions, and nuisance. The trial judge found first a nuisance, but he found also, and enjoined, on the second ground. Defendant has appealed. If plaintiffs have established right to injunctive relief on any of the grounds, the decree must be affirmed. We think that the trial judge was right in his first finding.
A court will view with greater severity defendant's invasion of this purely residential section by this business than it would view the case, if defendant were but continuing or extending a long-established business. Shimberg v. Risdon Creamery Co., 215 Mich. 94, 183 N. W. 780. The slaughter house in this neghborhood is prima facie a nuisance. 29 Cyc. 1181.
‘And a slaughter house which, by reason of its location, or the manner in which it is conducted, affects a person's health, or renders his enjoyment of life physically uncomfortable, or materially injures his property, will constitute a nuisance which may be enjoined.’ Joyce on Nuisances, §§ 126, 127.
But even in such a case a court of equity requires evidence of the fact of actual nuisance before it will enjoin. Wood on Nuisances (3d Ed.) 767.
Although the court may not enjoin in all cases the conducting of the business merely because it violates the ordinance, it will enjoin, if there is in fact a nuisance. Village of St. Johns v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co.
...in itself, may constitute an interference with an interest in the use and enjoyment of property. 38 In Conway v. Gampel, 235 Mich. 511, 514, 209 N.W. 562 (1926), this Court affirmed an injunction against operation of a slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood, and "There is evidence tha......
-
Ramik v. Darling Intern., Inc.
...in more recent case law appears to focus on whether an activity is a nuisance in fact. The Ramik Plaintiffs also cite Conway v. Gampel, 235 Mich. 511, 209 N.W. 562 (1926), for the proposition that the odor emitted from the processing of dead animals is a nuisance per se, but that case stand......
-
Brent v. City of Detroit, Docket No. 8391
...to enjoin anticipatory nuisances absent a showing of actual nuisance or the strong probability of such result. Conway v. Gampel (1926), 235 Mich. 511, 209 N.W. 562; Falkner v. Brookfield (1962), 368 Mich. 17, 117 N.W.2d 125. This has been true with proposed uses of children's playgrounds an......
-
East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland
...it might have been disposed to take if his business had been maintained in the neighborhood for a long period of time. Conway v. Gampel, 235 Mich. 511, 209 N.W. 562.' In Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, 184 Or. 336, 362, 198 P.2d 847, 858, 5 A.L.R.2d 690, we rested the matter with t......