Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Fincher
Decision Date | 14 September 1961 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 427 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY v. Joe C. FINCHER et al. |
Knox, Jones, Woolf & Merrill, Anniston, for appellant.
Roy D. McCord and L. D. Martin, Gadsden, for appellees.
This is an appeal by respondent from a decree overruling demurrer to a bill to enjoin a nuisance alleged to be created by the operation of an insecticide plant respondent just outside the corporate limits of the City of Anniston.
The bill alleges that complainants are each bona fide resident citizens of Calhoun County, and that respondent is a corporation operating its plant as aforesaid.
Appellant, respondent, states the questions in the case as follows:
* * *'
We are of opinion that appellees, as individuals, can maintain the bill, and also that the bill states sufficient grounds for an injunction to abate the nuisance complained of.
In pertinent part, the bill of complaint recites:
The rules governing the right of an individual to abate a public nuisance have been stated as follows:
Scruggs v. Beason, 246 Ala. 405, 407, 408, 20 So.2d 774, 775;
and also:
.' Hanna v. Harman, 230 Ala. 620, 621, 162 So. 109.
This court has sustained the right to an injunction to abate nuisances consisting of emitting obnoxious odors and gases from a tobacco drying house, Hundley v. Harrison, 123 Ala. 292, 26 So. 294; a stable, Kyser v. Hertzler, 188 Ala. 658, 65 So. 967; a sewer dump, City of Selma v. Jones, 202 Ala. 82, 79 So. 476, L.R.A.1918F, 1020; and odors and flies from a live poultry plant, Strickland v. Lambert, 268 Ala. 580, 109 So.2d 664.
The law does not require that before a party can abate a nuisance he must show an injury which is unique to him. Strickland v. Lambert, supra.
In the case at bar, the bill alleges that the gases and odors from respondent's plant permeate the homes, offices, and business places of the complainants...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Olin Corp.
...permit individual plaintiffs to bring an action seeking injunctive relief for abatement of a public nuisance. Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Fincher, 272 Ala. 534, 133 So.2d 192 (1961). Alabama statutory law is in accord: "If a public nuisance causes a special damage to an individual in which the......
-
Russell Corp. v. Sullivan
...discharge by Russell and Avondale. In short, the plaintiffs have established a private-nuisance claim. See Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Fincher, 272 Ala. 534, 133 So.2d 192 (1961); Strickland v. Lambert, 268 Ala. 580, 109 So.2d 664, III. Conclusion This Court should be addressing whether the pu......
-
Russell Corp. Co.v. Sullivan
...discharge by Russell and Avondale. In short, the plaintiffs have established a private-nuisance claim. See Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Fincher, 272 Ala. 534, 133 So. 2d 192 (1961); Strickland v. Lambert, 268 Ala. 580, 109 So. 2d 664, III. Conclusion This Court should be addressing whether the ......
-
Hobbs v. Mobile County., 1100004.
...Orso v. Cater, 272 Ala. 657, 133 So.2d 864 (1961). Equity has jurisdiction to enjoin continuing trespasses. Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Fincher, 272 Ala. 534, 133 So.2d 192 (1961). “[The County] claims that the holding in Ford does not apply because the [Hobbses] ‘seek to force the County to a......