Flynn v. Town of Seekonk
| Citation | 223 N.E.2d 690,352 Mass. 71 |
| Parties | Robert T. FLYNN et al. v. TOWN OF SEEKONK et al. |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1967 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Joseph R. Cleary, Taunton, for plaintiffs.
Charles E. Bennett, Attleboro, for defendants Brassard.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK and REARDON, JJ.
The plaintiffs seek in this bill in equity to abate an alleged nuisance caused by the stabling of a horse by the defendants Brassard, their neighbors, in a residence district in Seekonk, and seek also to order the selectmen of that town, acting as the board of health, to revoke a permit to stable the horse, allegedly granted in violation of the zoning by-law. There was a master's report which was confirmed by an interlocutory decree, followed by a final decree which dismissed the bill of complaint. The plaintiffs appeal from the final decree.
1. Whether a nuisance existed was a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. Loosian v. Goudreault, 335 Mass. 253, 255, 139 N.E.2d 403. Senatore v. Blinn, 342 Mass. 778, 174 N.E.2d 437. The specific question is whether the stabling of the horse constituted an unreasonable interference with the rights of the plaintiffs. Ferriter v. Herlihy, 287 Mass. 138, 143, 191 N.E. 352, and cases cited. The case was heard by the trial judge entirely on the master's report, and the interlocutory decree which confirmed it established the facts as found by the master to be the facts in the case. Foot v. Bauman, 333 Mass. 214, 219, 129 N.E.2d 916.
The master made the following findings pertinent to the question of nuisance. The horse had been stabled continuously on the Brassard premises since August of 1963 with the exception of the months of July and August when it was taken with them to another place during their vacation. The Brassard stable is located eleven feet from the property line of the plaintiffs. The residences of the plaintiffs and the Brassards are separated by a distance of 350 yards. Horses are kept by other residents in the area, some twenty horses being maintained by other persons approximately 300 feet from the property of the plaintiffs. The waste from the horse which has perturbed the plaintiffs was first dumped on the line of the plaintiffs' property. At the present time it is disposed of at the extreme end of the property line away from the buildings of the plaintiffs and the Brassards. The master took a view of the premises in the winter season but 'was unable to detect any odors or stench existing to a degree which may interfere with the enjoyment and comfort of the * * * (plaintiffs).' The plaintiffs maintain that since the master took his view in the wintertime we are under a duty reasonably to infer that a nuisance would exist in the warmer weather. The facts found by the master do not justify such an inference. Lacking further facts there is no substantiation that the Brassards' stabling of a horse is creating, or will create in the future, a private nuisance to the plaintiffs. The negative findings of the master resulting from his inability to determine upon the evidence whether the use of the premises constituted a private nuisance make it imperative that an injunction not issue and that the bill be dismissed. O'Keefe v. Sheehan, 235 Mass. 390, 397, 126 N.E. 822.
At most, the contentions of the plaintiffs may show that the defendants Brassard violated the conditions subject to which the permit to stable the horse was issued by the board of health under G.L. c. 111, § 155, in that there was a provision in the permit that there be no storage of manure within 100 feet of any property line. The appropriate remedy for such a violation was to request that the board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchette v. Blanchette
...been confirmed, his findings establish the facts in the case. Foot v. Bauman, 333 Mass. 214, 219, 129 N.E.2d 916; Flynn v. Town of Seekonk, 352 Mass. 71, 72, 223 N.E.2d 690. We summarize them. The parties were married on November 17, 1945. While married they both worked, with a few interrup......
-
Morganelli v. Building Inspector of Canton
...741, 744, 127 N.E.2d 650 (1955). Smith v. Board of Appeals of Plymouth, 340 Mass. 230, 234, 163 N.E.2d 654 (1960). Flynn v. Seekonk, 352 Mass. 71, 73, 223 N.E.2d 690 (1967). Onorati v. O'Donnell, 3 Mass.App. 739, 326 N.E.2d 367 (1975). Compare Ballantine v. Falmouth, 363 Mass. 760, 765 n. 4......
-
Flynn v. Brassard
...sometimes be referred to in this opinion as 'the earlier case.' Other litigation between the parties is reported in Flynn v. Seekonk, 352 Mass. 71, 223 N.E.2d 690 (1967).3 The plaintiff's wife was a defendant in the earlier case but does not appear as a plaintiff in the present case.4 The a......
-
Hebb v. Lamport
...to any party. So ordered. 1 No question has been raised as to the plaintiff's standing to maintain the bill. See Flynn v. Seekonk, 352 Mass. 71, 73--74, 223 N.E.2d 690 (1967). See now G.L. c. 231A, § 2, as amended by St.1974, c. 630, $ 1.2 No one has argued that the 1964 by-law is material ......