Godard v. Babson-Dow Mfg. Co.

Citation313 Mass. 280,47 N.E.2d 303
PartiesGODARD v. BABSON-DOW MFG. CO. CHARLESTOWN FIVE CENTS SAVINGS BANK v. SAME.
Decision Date24 February 1943
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Broadhurst, Judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, QUA, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

Two suits against the Babson-Dow Manufacturing Company, the first by Albert Godard and the second by the Charlestown Five Cents Savings Bank to enjoin the defendant from maintaining an alleged nuisance in a building owned by the last named plaintiff and leased in part by the first named plaintiff. Decrees for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals.

Decrees affirmed.

John B. Ford, of Boston, for Godard.

M. L. Sherin, of Boston, for the Bank.

W. P. Murray, of Boston (A. Zimble, of Roxbury, on the brief), for defendant.

COX, Justice.

The plaintiff Charlestown Five Cents Savings Bank, hereinafter referred to as the bank, is the owner of a three-story building in Boston, the entire third floor of which is occupied by the plaintiff Godard hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, under a written lease, the second floor being occupied by the defendant under a written lease. Each plaintiff brought a bill in equity on February 6, 1942, seeking to enjoin the defendant from maintaining an alleged nuisance in the building. The suits were referred to a master in whose report the following facts appear.

The building in question is designed and constructed for manufacturing purposes with exterior walls of brick. The interior is of mill construction ‘so-called,’ the posts, beams and floors being of wood. Although the building is of old type, it is substantially built and sound. The plaintiff, at the time his bill was filed and at the time of the hearing before the master, was engaged in fulfilling a contract for ten thousand cloth coats for the United States army. His premises consist of a large front room, approximately one hundred twenty feet in length, and a smaller rear room. On one side of the front room there is a line of sewing and buttonhole machines, and along approximately one third of the length of the other side, there is a line of similar machines and tables. A pressing machine occupies most of the center of the room. Power for the plaintiff's machines is furnished by individual motors attached to each machine. The plaintiff has about forty employees, most of whom are women, the greater number of whom constantly sit and sew at the machines. When the plaintiff first occupied the third floor, the second floor was vacant, and before the defendant entered under its lease, it was familiar with the nature and character of the plaintiff's manufacturing operations, his operatives and the layout of his plant.

The defendant's lease was dated November 21, 1941. It fitted up the second floor for its machine shop and occupied its premises in January, 1942. It installed milling machines, lathes, ‘drill presses,’ drills and stamping machines, aggregating about forty, most of which are in the nature of precision machine tools. Power for the greater part of this machinery is derived from a twenty-five horse power electric motor which is hung from a heavy plank inserted between and fastened by steel brackets to two ceiling beams, in the approximate center of its premises. The beams are about twenty by sixteen inches, and are supported by fourteen-by-fourteeninch wooden posts. The height from the floor to the ceiling of the second story, which forms the floor of the plaintiff's premises, is about twelve feet. A belt runs from the motor to a so called idler or intermediate shaft, upon which there is a heavy, thirty-inch pulley, and from the intermediate shaft to each side of the defendant's premises, just below the ceiling, belts run to two so called main lines of shafting which are about one hundred ten feet in length. There are pulleys on these main lines of shafting from which power is directly communicated to the various machines. All of the shafting is affixed to ceiling beams. The machines are in operation for the entire day, except for the luncheon period, and usually run during the night until 9 P. M. The method employed by the defendant of furnishing power to the machine shop is a usual and ordinary one, but ‘the details of the shafting and pulleys are not so nearly perfect or precise as possible.’ There is a slight variation from ‘true’ in the large pulley on the intermediate shaft, and some of the small pulleys on the main shafting are not perfectly round, and ‘it would be probably better from the standpoint of vibration if the motor were attached directly to a beam instead of being hung as it is on a plank between two beams.’ The purpose of so hanging the motor was to secure more head room. The master found, however, that in the setup and transmission of motor power to the machinery, the defendant had not been negligent, and that the arrangement was reasonably sound and proper.

While the power is on in the defendant's premises, there is a constant and disturbing noise, in the nature of a heavy rumbling, in the plaintiff's premises, and a ‘very considerable vibration of the entire floor of his premises,’ except in the rear room. The vibration is particularly noticeable above the motor, but spreads throughout the entire room. Although the noise or rumble, of itself, might reasonably be expected in such a building, the vibration of the floor and the accompanying noise are such that there is an interference with the conduct of the plaintiff's business. The actual production of his factory has not been diminished since the operation of the defendant's shop began, but the work done by his operatives in the large room is more difficult. The plaintiff's machines are not shaken or vibrated to such an extent as to interfere with their mechanical operation, but the female operatives are made uncomfortable, rendered more nervous, have frequent headaches, make more frequent mistakes in stitching, and, in general, do not work as efficiently as they would without the disturbance described. To a certain extent their health is thereby affected. The plaintiff's bookkeeping and clerical work is done under a strain. The vibration and noise in the plaintiff's premises could be decreased somewhat if the motor were placed on, or supported from the floor, but to support it and all shafting from the floor would be impracticable. The only certain way to eliminate the noise and vibration now experienced on the third floor would be to furnish power to the defendant's machines by individual motors and to remove all motive power from the ceiling. The defendant has been granted what is known as ‘Al priority’ by the Federal authorities, and motors are procurable in the market to make such an installation practical. The defendant has approximately eighteen ‘drill presses' that are driven by individual motors.

The defendant's shop is devoted exclusively to the production of munitions and war appliances, all either under contracts with the United States government or under subcontracts with those who have such contracts. War requirements have created an imperative necessity for the products manufactured and the defendant is under constant pressure from the military and naval branches of the government to make deliveries. Most, if not all, of the products require the highest degree of refinement, in some cases to one thousandth of an inch. While the defendant's shop can be changed over from the present method of conveying the power so that the power of its machines would be furnished by individual motors, such a change, unless made gradually, would result in a serious interruption of the defendant's operation and a delay in turning out its products. The defendant covenanted in its lease that the premises would not be used for any purposes except light machine work. The defendant appealed from the final decree in each suit granting injunctive relief.

We are of opinion that the findings of the master establish that a private nuisance is maintained by the defendant, at least in so far as the plaintiff Godard is concerned, of such a character that he is entitled to injunctive relief, unless the circumstance that the defendant is engaged in war production requires that such relief should not be granted. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. 486, 488-491, 104 N.E. 371, Ann.Cas.1915B, 1054;Stodder v. Rosen Talking Machine Co., 241 Mass. 245, 250, 251, 135 N.E. 251, 22 A.L.R. 1197; Cumberland Corp. v. Metropoulos, 241 Mass. 491, 497, 498, 502, 503, 135 N.E. 693;Nugent v. Melville Shoe Corp., 280 Mass. 469, 472, 473, 182 N.E. 825. See Shea v. National Ice Cream Co., Inc., 280 Mass. 206, 182 N.E. 303;Swensen v. Marino, 306 Mass. 582, 29 N.E.2d 15, 130 A.L.R. 763. The facts found disclose something more than a fanciful injury. Stodder v. Rosen Talking Machine Co., 241 Mass. 245, 250, 135 N.E. 251, 22 A.L.R. 1197. Compare Wade v. Miller, 188 Mass. 6, 73 N.E. 849,69 L.R.A. 820.

The defendant contends that the facts found do not disclose a nuisance for the reason that it does not appear that a normal person would be affected by what goes on. It is true that the standard in a case of this character is what ordinary persons, acting reasonably, have a right to demand in the circumstances. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. 486, 489, 104 N.E. 371, Ann.Cas.1915B, 1054. While the question whether a nuisance exists is one of fact, the court is empowered to draw inferences...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Pendoley v. Ferreira
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 7, 1963
    ...Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. 486, 491-493, 104 N.E. 371; Marshall v. Holbrook, 276 Mass. 341, 348; Godard v. Babson-Dow Mfg. Co., 313 Mass. 280, 286-287, 47 N.E.2d 303, 145 A.L.R. 603; Weltshe v. Graf, 323 Mass. 498, 500, 82 N.E.2d 795; Malm v. Dubrey, 325 Mass. 63, 67, 88 N.E.2d 900; Lo......
  • Godard v. Babson-Dow Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 24, 1943
  • Loosian v. Goudreault
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 8, 1957
    ...a nuisance existed was a question of fact, Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. 486, 104 N.E. 371; Godard v. Babson-Dow Mfg. Co., 313 Mass. 280, 285, 47 N.E.2d 303, 145 A.L.R. 603; and the court is empowered to draw inferences of fact from the findings of the master, and reach a diffe......
  • Gilbert v. Thierry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 10, 1946
    ...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, 145 A.L.R. 603;Anderson v. Guerrein Sky-Way Amusement Co., 346 Pa. 80, 29 A.2d 682, 144 A.L.R. 1258;Stubbins v. Atlantic Cit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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