Czapski v. Sun Oil Co.

Decision Date24 May 1939
Citation21 N.E.2d 230,303 Mass. 186
PartiesCZAPSKI v. SUN OIL CO. et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Suit by Wladyslaw Czapski against Sun Oil Company and another to restrain the operation by the defendants of a gasoline filling station adjoining the plaintiff's tenement houses. From a final decree dismissing the bill, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Hammond, Judge.

J. K. Jerome and A. Sigel, both of Boston, for appellant.

W. F. Farr and D. G. Allen, both of Boston, for appellees.

LUMMUS, Justice.

The plaintiff appeals from a final decree dismissing his bill to restrain the operation by the defendants of a gasoline filling station adjoining the plaintiff's tenement houses, the kitchens of which overlook it. The judge found no unnecessary noise or odor. But the evidence is reported, and we are bound to make findings for ourselves, giving to the findings of the judge the weight required by a rule too familiar to need restatement. Trade Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Peters, 291 Mass. 79, 83, 84, 195 N.E. 900;Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc., Mass., 8 N.E.2d 895;Smith v. Stratton, Mass., 18 N.E.2d 328.

The evidence showed some noise, and an objectionable odor, but nothing beyond the natural incidents of the reasonable and careful conduct of a gasoline filling station. Since it is conceded that the defendants were licensed by the proper public authorities to maintain such a station, the plaintiff cannot restrain as a nuisance the doing in a reasonable and careful manner of the very act licensed. Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239, 49 Am.Rep. 27;White v. Kenney, 157 Mass. 12, 31 N.E. 654;Murtha v. Lovewell, 166 Mass. 391, 44 N.E. 347,55 Am.St.Rep. 410;Commonwealth v. Packard, 185 Mass. 64, 69 N.E. 1067;Levin v. Goodwin, 191 Mass. 341, 77 N.E. 718,114 Am.St.Rep. 616; Strachan v. Beacon Oil Co., 251 Mass. 479, 487, 488, 146 N.E. 787;Marshall v. Holbrook, 276 Mass. 341, 346, 177 N.E. 504. See also St. James Building Corp. v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 260 Mass. 548, 157 N.E. 629;Hanauer v. State Fire Marshall, 271 Mass. 506, 171 N.E. 428. Compare Hakkila v. Old Colony Broken Stone & Concrete Co., 264 Mass. 447, 162 N.E. 895;Tortorella v. H. Traiser & Co., Inc., 284 Mass. 497, 501, 188 N.E. 254, 90 A.L.R. 1203.

Decree affirmed with costs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Gilbert v. Thierry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1946
    ...that governmental compulsion, no less than governmental permission (Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239, 49 Am.Rep. 27;Czapski v. Sun Oil Co., 303 Mass. 186, 21 N.E.2d 230), may excuse what without it would be an actionable nuisance. Godard v. Babson-Dow Manuf. Co., 313 Mass. 280, 47 N.E.2d 303,......
  • Gilbert v. Thierry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1946
    ...assume, without deciding, that governmental compulsion, no less than governmental permission (Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239; Czapski v. Sun Oil Co. 303 Mass. 186), excuse what without it would be an actionable nuisance. Godard v. Babson-Dow Manuf. Co. 313 Mass. 280 . Anderson v. Guerrein S......
  • Littlefield v. Stow Zba
    • United States
    • Massachusetts Superior Court
    • September 25, 2007
    ...the plaintiff cannot restrain as a nuisance the doing in a reasonable and careful manner of the very act licensed." Czapski v. Sun Oil Co., 303 Mass. 186 (1939). B. PLAINTIFFS MUST SHOW THAT THE CLAIMED HARM IS UNREASONABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL. The harm required to be proven in a nuisance claim......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT