Davis v. Whitney
| Decision Date | 27 July 1894 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. WHITNEY et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Action by Melissa D. Davis against Charles O. Whitney and another for maintaining a private nuisance. Facts were found by a referee. Judgment for defendants.
Case for maintaining a private nuisance. Facts found by a referee. The defendants owned and operated a shoddy mill, situated 86 feet from the plaintiff's dwelling house, and equipped with machinery indispensable to the business, and similar to that used in other shoddy mills. When the wind was in the right direction, lint, dust, and smoke—the latter of a sickening odor—were driven towards the plaintiff's house, obliging her to close the doors and windows on that side. On two or three occasions she had to absent herself from the house for several weeks, because chronic diseases from which she suffered were made worse by the objectionable materials and odors. The defendants have not intended to Injure her, and have tried to construct their plant so that she would not be annoyed. The use they made of their premises was found to be reasonable. The plaintiff's damages were assessed at $300. Both parties moved for judgment on the report.
Don H. Woodward and Charles H. Hersey, for plaintiff.
Batchelder & Faulkner, for defendants.
The referee has found that the use made by the defendants of their premises was reasonable. According to the decisions in this state, the defendants are entitled to judgment. Bassett v. Manufacturing Co., 43 N.H. 569; Hayes v. Waldron, 44 N.H. 580; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N.H. 439; Eaton v. Railroad Co., 51 N.H. 504, 533; Brown v. Collins, 53 N.H. 442; Haley v. Colcord, 59 N.H. 7; Green v. Gilbert, 60 N.H. 144; Rindge v. Sargent, 64 N.H. 294, 9 Atl. 723. Judgment for the defendants. All concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mesiti v. Microdot, Inc.
...for creating nuisance by depositing rubbish on his lot if "foul or unhealthy gases or other substances or odors escape"); Davis v. Whitney, 68 N.H. 66, 44 A. 78 (1874) (neighbor sued mill for producing "lint, dust, and smoke of a sickening odor"); Ladd v. Granite State Brick Co., 68 N.H. 18......
-
Elliott v. Town of Mason
...in this state in a liberal form, on a broad basis of general principle." Haley v. Colcord, 59 N. H. 7, 8, 47 Am. Rep. 176; Davis v. Whitney, 68 N. H. 66, 44 Atl. 78; Ladd v. Brick Co., 68 N. H. 185, 37 Atl. 1041; Franklin v. Durgee, 71 N. H. 186, 51 Atl. 911, 58 L. R. A. 112; Horan v. Byrne......
- Heald v. Concord & M. R. R.
-
Moore v. Berlin Mills Co.
...by it." See, also, Brown v. Collins, 53 N. H. 442, 16 Am. Rep. 372; Carter v. Thurston, 58 N. H. 104, 107, 42 Am. Rep. 584; Davis v. Whitney, 68 N. H. 66, 44 Atl. 78; Gerrish v. Whitfield, 72 N. H. 222, 224, 55 Atl. The radical inapplicability of that doctrine to the modern state of industr......