McNulty v. Miller

• Decision Date: 25 November 1912
• Citation: 151 S.W. 208,167 Mo. App. 134
• Parties: McNULTY et al. v. MILLER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

151 S.W. 208

167 Mo. App. 134

McNULTY et al. v. MILLER.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 25, 1912.

NUISANCE (§ 3) — PRIVATE NUISANCE — BREEDING BARNS.

One maintaining a barn and corral near a street for the sole purpose of keeping stallions to which he bred mares brought there maintains a nuisance to persons living from 200 to 400 feet from the barn and seeing the mares coming and going, and hearing the neighing and kicking, though the corral was inclosed with a high board fence, so that on the level one could not see in it or the barn.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Andrew County; A. D. Burns, Judge.

Action by John McNulty and others against Harry E. Miller. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. R. Martin and C. C. Crow, both of St. Joseph, for appellant. W. R. Littell, of Tarkio, for respondents.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiffs are residents and property owners in the town of Tarkio, and instituted this action to enjoin and restrain defendant from using a certain building and corral as a breeding barn by the use of stallions and jacks. The decree in the circuit court was in their favor.

The decree suppressed an aggravated and disgusting nuisance, and was therefore right. Plaintiffs lived in their homes at distances from 200 to 400 feet from defendant's frame barn which he erected near the street in Tarkio for the sole purpose of keeping stallions to breed to mares. The plaintiffs' families consisted of their wives and children, some of the latter being grown girls. Others were young, of both sexes. The evidence showed that from spring till fall defendant kept three stallions to which he bred mares that were brought to his place for that purpose. The corral was inclosed with a high board fence, and on the level one could not see in it or the barn. But mares, many of them each day, were brought to the place and taken away. They were frequently hitched outside, in sight of the families. Their coming and going were in full view. The neighing, kicking, squealing, and biting of the animals was terrific to small children, who asked their mothers what it meant. Older members of the families, from a sense of shame and modesty, were practically deprived of the use of their yards and porches and driven into the houses. They were embarrassed in having company at their premises, and some people went around over by-ways to avoid that street. The evidence in behalf of plaintiffs clearly shows a depreciation in the value of...