Crawford v. Union Cotton Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 700 |
| Citation | 202 Ala. 3,79 So. 299 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. UNION COTTON OIL CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John H. Miller, Judge.
Suit by Mary Crawford against the Union Cotton Oil Company to recover damages for a nuisance. From a decree for defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
James Barton and Horace C. Wilkinson, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Tillman Bradley & Morrow and Chas. E. Rice, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
Plaintiff appellant, sued defendant, appellee, in an action on the case to recover damages alleged to have been caused by defendant's maintenance and operation of a nuisance in the shape of a cotton oil mill. It is alleged:
That defendant's mill was constructed in a neighborhood theretofore set apart to residential purposes, that its sheds and buildings are unsightly--but that is of no legal consequence--and that "during the operation of said plant the machinery therein creates loud, constant unreasonable, and discomforting noise, and that unpleasant and unwholesome and noxious gases and odors are permitted to emanate therefrom, and that volumes of smoke, steam, soot, lint, and other foreign substances are permitted or allowed to emanate from said plant, and that until, to wit, 10 o'clock, a.m. each morning during the months of November and December, 1915, and January and February, 1916, the sun was obscured from the aforesaid property and homestead of plaintiff on account of great volumes of smoke and steam that emanated from said plant, and as a proximate consequence thereof plaintiff's property has been caused to depreciate in value, and that the market value of same and the rental value of said property has been rendered greatly less valuable."
Plaintiff further alleges that her comfortable enjoyment of her property has been greatly impaired, that her rest has been disturbed, and that she has been caused to suffer great mental and physical pain, all to her great damage, etc. The evidence went to show that defendant's buildings, large and numerous, were constructed of brick, concrete, and steel and were as permanent as any buildings for the purpose could well be. Plaintiff offered to prove the value of her property before and after the construction and operation of defendant's mill, but the court, on defendant's objection, excluded all evidence to that effect, whereupon plaintiff took a nonsuit with a bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. City of Dothan
... ... trees along that watercourse was done or caused. Crawford ... v. Union Cotton Oil Co., 202 Ala. 3, 79 So. 299; ... Schneider v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., ... ...
-
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Ala. v. Gadsden Sand & Gravel Co.
... ... Steel & Iron Co. v. Mitchell, 161 Ala. 278, 49 So. 851; ... Crawford v. Union Cotton Oil Co., 202 Ala ... [27 So.2d 582] ... 3, 79 ... So. 299; City of ... ...
-
City of Clanton v. Johnson
...suits, but his damages are awarded in solido in one action. Sloss-Sheffield [Steel & Iron] Co. v. Mitchell, supra; Crawford v. Union Cotton Oil Co., supra. "The principles of the above cases as now controlled by what is section 235 of the Constitution apply to cities. Section 235 of the Con......
-
City of Birmingham v. Leberte
...Co. v. Shahan, 116 Ala. 302, 22 So. 509; Sloss-Sheffield [Steel & Iron] Co. v. Mitchell, 161 Ala. 278, 49 So. 851; Crawford v. Union Cotton Oil Co., 202 Ala. 3, 79 So. 299. But for an injury by a permanent and unabatable condition the damages are estimated on the hypothesis of an indefinite......