Euler v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 17 March 1892 |
| Citation | 23 A. 845,75 Md. 616 |
| Parties | EULER v. SULLIVAN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from superior court of Baltimore city.
Action by Mary C. Sullivan against Frederick Euler, trading as C. A Euler & Son, to recover damages for a nuisance. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, ROBINSON, BRYAN, FOWLER MCSHERRY, and BRISCOE, JJ.
C D. McFarland, Peter J. Campbell, and L. P Hennighausen, for appellant.
Henry D. Loney, for appellee.
This is an action for damages, brought by the appellee against the appellant, for a nuisance. The defendant, at the trial, reserved one exception, and that was to the granting of the plaintiff's prayer and to the rejection of two prayers offered on his part. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff shows that she is the owner of a lot of ground 15X58 feet, which is improved by a brick dwelling fronting on Little Paca street and running back to Burgundy alley, in Baltimore city, which is used by her as a store and a dwelling; that the defendant owns the property adjoining thereto, which he uses for the purposes of a paper-box factory; that on defendant's premises there is an engine, boiler, and smoke-stack, the latter being about a foot and a half from plaintiff's house; that she rented out rooms in her dwelling, and also kept a shop in a part of it; that the articles which she kept in her shop were rendered unsalable, and the rent of her dwelling was diminished, by the smoke, steam, and cinders from defendant's chimney. And the evidence on the part of the defendant shows that there are other steam-engines, boilers, and smoke-stacks in factories located near this dwelling; that smoke, steam, and cinders were emitted from these factories and mingled with the smoke from the chimney of his factory; that a cold-storage factory has two large boilers and engines situated about 70 feet from this dwelling; that the defendant has a small engine and boiler, and kept them in a good condition; that he used his engine in the usual and ordinary way, and did not cause the smoke, steam, and cinders to be emitted in an unreasonable manner from his premises, so as to unnecessarily injure the plaintiff. Upon this state of facts the court below granted the following instruction on the part of the plaintiff: "If they find from the evidence that the defendant erected a boiler and engine near to the house and lot of the plaintiff, and that smoke, steam, and cinders escaped from the chimneys of the defendant, connected with the said boiler, which smoke, steam, and cinders entered the premises of the plaintiff in such quantity or to such extent as to render her house and premises less comfortable, enjoyable, or useful than they otherwise would have been, then the plaintiff is entitled to their verdict." There were two prayers offered by the defendant, which we will consider hereafter.
Does then, the instruction given by the court on the part of the plaintiff correctly define the law, as applicable to this case? In the recent case of Fertilizer Co. v. Malone, 73 Md. 276, 20 A. 900, this court said that no principle is better settled than that "where a trade or business is carried on in such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment by another of his property, or which occasions material injury to the property itself, a wrong is done to the neighboring owner for which an action will lie." Vide cases there cited. But all of the authorities hold that the injury must be of a character to diminish materially the value of the property, or seriously interfere with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of it, such as would entitle...
To continue reading
Request your trial