Garfield Box Co. v. Clifton Paper Bd. Co., Inc., 430.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 430.,430. |
| Parties | GARFIELD BOX CO. v. CLIFTON PAPER BOARD CO., Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court of Passaic.
Action by the Garfield Box Company against the Clifton Paper Board Company, Incorporated, for damages resulting from discharge of smoke, cinders, and soot. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued October term, 1940, before TRENCHARD, BODINE, and PORTER, JJ.
Charles J. Bodner, of Passaic, for plaintiff-respondent.
Milton M. Unger, of Newark, for defendant-appellant.
The plaintiff and defendant are both engaged in industrial manufacturing operations in the same locality, their factories being on opposite sides of Ackerman Avenue, Clifton. The action was for damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff because of smoke, cinders and soot discharged on its plant, machinery and manufactured goods, from the premises of the defendant. The trial court, sitting without a jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $500.
The appeal is based upon two points: First, because there was no evidence upon which the judgment can be sustained. Second, because the court erred in not granting motions for non suit or directed verdict for the defendant.
We do not entertain those views.
The state of demand sets out in one count two allegations on which the action was based. Those were that defendant maintained an absolute nuisance and was negligent in the operation of its factory. The case was tried on those theories.
The testimony was that soot and cinders from the defendant's factory chimney were constantly falling and coming into and onto the plaintiff's factory; that it came in substantial quantities making necessary daily dusting and cleaning in order to prevent damage to its manufactured goods. That despite protective measures its goods were damaged by the dirt and some were rejected by its customers and returned as unsatisfactory; certain machinery was damaged and repairs to it made necessary. In addition, damages were claimed because of the cost of labor in dusting and cleaning.
The defendant sharply disputed the question of liability producing testimony that its fuel was properly used and fully consumed and that the soot and cinders did not come from its chimneys. It also argues that the damages were not established.
It was for the trial court to weigh the testimonyand find the facts. Where, as here, there was testimony which supports the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartman v. City of Brigantine
...supra, 160 N.E. at page 391. Cf. Melucci v. Eagan, 124 N.J.Eq. 241, 1 A.2d 452 (E. & A.1938); Garfield Box Co. v. Clifton Paper Board Co., Inc., 125 N.J.L. 603, 17 A.2d 588 (Sup.Ct.1941). On the other hand, it is also applied to circumstances where the defendant's liability truly depends on......
-
Borough of Cresskill v. Borough of Dumont
...of his property, or his comfort.' A nuisance may be a private and a public one at the same time. Garfield Box Co. v. Clifton Paper Board Co., 125 N.J.L. 603, 17 A.2d 588 (Sup.Ct. 1941). The Legislature, by statute, may declare, within constitutional limits, acts and uses as nuisances which ......