Martin v. Blattner

• Citation: 27 N.W. 244,68 Iowa 286
• Parties: MARTIN v. BLATTNER AND OTHERS.
• Decision Date: 17 March 1886
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

68 Iowa 286

27 N.W. 244

MARTIN

v.BLATTNER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed March 17, 1886.

On rehearing. S. C. 25 N. W. Rep. 131.

*244SEEVERS, J.

It must be assumed that Mr. Gibbs leased the premises for a lawful purpose, and that he did not have any knowledge, at the time the injunction was asked, that his tenants had committed a statutory nuisance thereon by selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law. This being so, a petition for a rehearing has been filed upon the ground that a landlord cannot be made liable for a nuisance created by his tenant of which he has no knowledge. Authorities are cited in support of this doctrine, and we think, in a certain sense, it is undoubtedly true. Cooley, Torts, 608-612; Woods, Landl. & Ten. § 539. An examination of these authorities, and all others cited in notes therein, will demonstrate that the doctrine above stated has been established in actions to recover damages for the erection or continuance of private nuisances. In such cases it has been generally held that a landlord is not liable in damages that have been caused by nuisances created by his tenant, of which the landlord has no knowledge. This case is materially different. In the first place, this is a public nuisance, although the action is brought by a private citizen under a statute which authorizes him to bring this action. In the second place, it is not sought to recover damages for the past, but the sole object of the action is to restrain and prevent the nuisance in the future. When Mr. Gibbs was made a party to the action, he obtained knowledge that it was claimed and charged that his tenants had been using the leased premises as a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, thereby creating a public nuisance, and therefore he, as the owner of the premises, or, rather, his property, under the statute, would become liable as therein provided. This, at least, should be regarded as sufficient to put him on inquiry as to the truth of the matter charged. Not only so, but, as he was made a party and appeared in the action, he is chargeable with such knowledge, in relation to the existence of the nuisance, as was established by the evidence introduced on the trial. The court found and determined that a nuisance existed, and until this determination was reversed or set aside in a lawful manner, it must be regarded as conclusive evidence of the existence of the nuisance, as against, not only the lessees, but also as to the...