Lippincott v. Lasher

• Decision Date: 16 May 1888
• Citation: 14 A. 103,44 N.J.E. 120
• Parties: LIPPINCOTT v. LASHER et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

14 A. 103

44 N.J.E. 120

LIPPINCOTT

v. LASHER et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

May 16, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Bill for injunction by Joseph W. Lippincott against William Lasher and others.

W. T. Hilliard, for complainant. M. P. Gray, for defendants.

BIRD, V. C. The complainant in this case occupies a dwelling-house in the city of Salem, on either side of which, and upon the side of the street opposite thereto, are many stores and other buildings used in carrying on various trades or occupations. It seems to be admitted that his is the only dwelling in that immediate vicinity. This dwelling is situated about 25 feet from the curb-stone along the public highway, and in front of it, near the street, are one or more large trees. The defendants own horses and wagons, and carry on the business of carting, doing whatever merchants or others solicit in that particular. For some time past, and especially during the summer and early fall of 1886, the defendants would spend their idle time, with their horses and wagons, in the shade of these trees, directly in front of the complainant's house, at furthest within 50 feet of the dwelling, and often within 35 feet, if not nearer. The testimony shows very clearly that during the greater portion of the day one or more of these defendants, and sometimes others, also, were there with their teams. To this effect the testimony of many witnesses upon the part of the complainant is as emphatic as can well be imagined. These witnesses are in no way impeached. Although the defendants have attempted to overcome the force of this testimony, yet they admit occupying this ground, with their horses and wagons, whenever, during the day, they were not actually engaged in the work of carting, and say that at such times they would remain there 10 or 20 minutes. They nevertheless endeavor to impress the assertion upon the mind of the court that the period of time spent there was so short as to be of comparatively little importance. I conclude, however, that it is well established that these defendants, although they may not individually have remained there so long a period of time as the complainant insists day after day, yet that they did (one or more of them) spend a greater portion of the time, from day to day, at the locality in question, so that the place was occupied by them a very great portion of every working day. It is claimed that the result of this was very detrimental to the full and complete enjoyment of the complainant's dwelling-house. It deprived him of those comforts which he was entitled to as a resident there. In consequence of the presence of these horses flies became more numerous and troublesome than they otherwise would have been, and the atmosphere became foul and so vitiated as to obliged the complainant to close the doors and windows of his house. Now, if the proof sustains these allegations...