Lefrois v. Monroe County

• Decision Date: 01 May 1900
• Citation: Lefrois v. Monroe Cnty., 162 N.Y. 563, 57 N.E. 185 (N.Y. 1900)
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: JOSEPH LEFROIS, Respondent, v. THE COUNTY OF MONROE, Appellant.

162 N.Y. 563

57 N.E. 185

LEFROIS

v.MONROE COUNTY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 1, 1900.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Fourth department.

Action by Joseph Lefrois against the county of Monroe. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, affirmed by the appellate division (48 N. Y. Supp. 519), defendant appeals. Reversed.

Martin and Vann, JJ., dissenting.

John Desmond, for appellant.

John A. Stull, for respondent.

CULLEN, J.

The action is brought to restrain the continuance of a nuisance, and for damages. The complaint alleged ownership and occupation by the plaintiff of a tract of land in the town of Brighton, county of Monroe; that the defendant owned a tract of land near plaintiff's premises, on which it maintained the county penitentiary and the county alms house, and, until the sale of a portion of the premises to the state, an insane asylum; that the defendant owned and possessed another tract of land or farm across the road from that first mentioned; that a stream ran along said lands, and also along those of the plaintiff; that the defendant discharged the night soil, offal, and garbage from the penitentiary, alms house, and insane asylum into said stream until the year 1883, when, in an action brought against the board of supervisors of the defendant, it was restrained from further permitting sewage to run into the water way; that after said time, and until the commencement of the action, sewage and night soil were spread over the farm or tract of land on the opposite side of the road from the buildings; and that thereby the defendant created a nuisance, to the great damage of the plaintiff's land and stock. The answer admitted the ownership of the parcels of land described in the complaint, and denied the other allegations therein contained. The cause was tried at special term, and the learned court found, as matter of fact, that the defendant had maintained the nuisance charged in the complaint, and awarded to the plaintiff $600 for damages, and an injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining the defendant from permitting any sewage or other foul or filthy matter from defendant's buildings or premises to run into the stream mentioned, or to flow in any way over or past the lands of the plaintiff in such manner as to pollute the air thereon or the waters of the stream. The judgment entered on this decision was unanimously affirmed by the appellate division. We are therefore confined in our examination to the question whether the facts, as found, sustain the conclusions of law, and to the consideration of any legal errors duly raised by exceptions as to the reception or rejection of evidence.

The facts alleged in the complaint and found by the court show conclusively that the county of Monroe acted in the premises in its governmental capacity, and it consequently follows that the conclusions of law based thereon, holding it liable in damages to the plaintiff, cannot be sustained. It is clearly alleged and found that the county of Monroe for 20 years has been the owner and in possession of certain lands, on which are located the penitentiary, alms house, and, prior to 1892, the Monroe county insane asylum; also, a farm of about 60 acres opposite the above premises, on which have been constructed two large tanks or reservoirs, into which are introduced pipes running from said buildings, conducting the sewage thereof, except the night soil of the penitentiary.

Few questions have given rise to more diversity of judicial opinion, or greater conflict in judicial decisions, than that of the liability of municipal corporations for the acts of their officers or servants. In every state in this country, as far as we know, that follows the common law, a distinction is drawn between the class of cases in which the municipality is held liable for the torts of its agents, and those in which it is held exempt. But not only the grounds on which the distinction is placed, but the line of cleavage itself between liability and nonliability, differs greatly in different jurisdictions. Which distinction is the sound one, and whether any distinction will logically stand the test of final analysis, have been questioned. Nevertheless, in this state the rule governing the liability or nonliability of a municipal corporation has for the past 25 years been settled by an unbroken line of authority, although there have been at time differences of opinion as to the application of the rule. In Maxmilian v. Mayor, etc., 62 N. Y. 160, there was stated the broad general doctrine that two kinds of duties are imposed on municipal...