Meadowbrook Swimming Club, Inc. v. Albert
Decision Date | 03 February 1938 |
Docket Number | 9. |
Citation | 197 A. 146,173 Md. 641 |
Parties | MEADOWBROOK SWIMMING CLUB, Inc., v. ALBERT et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Samuel K. Dennis Judge.
Suit by Talbot J. Albert and others against the Meadowbrook Swimming Club, Inc., for an injunction against continuance of a noise nuisance. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Walter C. Mylander, of Baltimore (Nathan Patz and Walter C Mylander, Jr., all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Robert W. Williams, of Baltimore (J. A. Dushane Penniman and Ritchie, Janney, Ober & Williams, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
The appeal in this case is from a decree for an injunction against the continuance of a noise nuisance, the existence of which was asserted, and disputed, in the pleadings and in the testimony.
In regard both to the facts of the case and to the law governing its decision, we are in accord with the conclusions stated in the opinion delivered by Chief Judge Dennis, in the lower court, from which we quote as follows:
'The rule which must control is whether the nuisance complained of will or does produce such a condition of things as in the judgment of reasonable men is naturally productive of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities, tastes, and habits, such as in view of the circumstances of the case is unreasonable and in derogation of the rights of the party (Hamilton Corp. v. Julian, 130 Md. 597, 101 A. 558, 7 A.L.R. 746; Woodyear v. Schaefer, 57 Md. 1, 12, 40 Am.Rep. 419) subject to the qualification that it is not every inconvenience that will call forth the restraining power of a court. The injury must be of such a character as to diminish materially the value of the property as a dwelling and seriously interfere with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of it. Adams v. Michael, 38 Md. 123, 17 Am.Rep. 516; Gallagher v. Flury, 99 Md. 181, 182, 57 A. 672; Euler v. Sullivan, 75 Md. 616, 618, 23 A. 845, 32 Am.St.Rep. 420.
'Many cases (too many in fact to enumerate) are found in the reports of nuisances which were enjoined due to pollution of water courses, and of the air; of continuing damages to property and health. For example, where noxious gases injuriously affecting the health, comfort, and convenience of persons of normal sensibilities so as to deprive persons living nearby of the reasonable enjoyment of their dwellings, the nuisance was enjoined though in a manufacturing and industrial community. Washington Cleaners & Dyers v. Albrecht, 157 Md. 389, 146 A. 233; Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Spangler, 86 Md. 562, 39 A. 270, 63 Am.St.Rep. 533; Taylor v. Baltimore, 130 Md. 133, 99 A. 900, L.R.A.1917C, 1046; Chappell v. Funk, 57 Md. 465.
'Again, nuisances due to the installation of tanks for the storage of inflammable and explosive oils, Hendrickson v. Standard Oil Co., 126 Md. 577, 95 A. 153, escaping smoke, Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. Oldenburg & Kelley, 122 Md. 236, 89 A. 601, the establishment of a pesthouse whereby persons are exposed to disease, City of Baltimore v. Fairfield Imp. Co., 87 Md. 352, 39 A. 1081, 40 L.R.A. 494, 67 Am.St.Rep. 344, were enjoined.
'Of greater interest are precedents relating to nuisances due to the creation of noises. From those we find that noise alone if it be of such a character as to be productive of actual physical discomfort and annoyance to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright
...from the intangible emanation of sound, see, e.g., Gormanv. Sabo, 210 Md. 155, 122 A.2d 475 (1956); Meadowbrook Swimming Club, Inc. v. Albert, 173 Md. 641, 197 A. 146 (1938), and the threat of future harm related to nearby storage of explosives, see Hendrickson v. Standard Oil Co., 126 Md. ......
-
Five Oaks Corp. v. Gathmann
...as to prevent them from being an annoyance to nearby residents, unless this has already been done. The appellant notes that in the Meadowbrook case, supra, only general decree was passed, which left the defendant at liberty to devise and apply an efficient plan for the abatement of the proh......
-
Soukoup v. Republic Steel Corp.
... ... H ... Traiser & Co., Inc., 1933, 284 Nass. 497, 188 N.E. 254, ... 90 A.L.R. 1203; ... superior court of Maryland in Meadowbrook Swimming Club v ... Albert et al., 1935, 173 Md. 641, 197 ... ...
-
Fox v. Ewers
...(Five Oaks Corporation v. Gathmann, supra; Green v. Garrett, supra), but this is the exception rather than the rule. Meadowbrook Swimming Club v. Albert, supra. Courts not needlessly prohibit an otherwise lawful business, but they do not hesitate to prohibit a business if it cannot be condu......