Nugent v. Melville Shoe Corp.

Decision Date28 October 1932
Citation182 N.E. 825,280 Mass. 469
PartiesNUGENT et al. v. MELVILLE SHOE CORPORATION et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester County; P. J. O'Connell, Judge.

Suit by Harold J. Nugent and another against Melville Shoe Corporation and another. An interlocutory decree was entered confirming master's report and supplemental report, and an order for decree and the final decree were entered, and the defendants appeal.

Interlocutory decree affirmed; order for decree and final decree affirmed with costs.

C. C. Milton, of Worcester, for appellants.

L. E. Stockwell, of Worcester, for appellees.

CROSBY, J.

This suit is brought to have certain acts of the defendants enjoined as a nuisance, and to recover damages resulting therefrom. The plaintiffs at the time of the acts complained of were the owners, as tenants in common, of certain real estate, in Worcester, consisting of two three-family houses, and one four-family house. The defendant Melville Shoe Corporation (which will hereafter be referred to as the defendant unless otherwise indicated) was the owner of a tract of land immediately adjoining said property of the plaintiffs, upon which a two-story building had been erected before the filing of this bill. A short time before this suit was brought the owner began the erection of two additional stories upon its building, the work being done by the defendant Aberthaw Company, Inc. The alleged wrongful acts of the defendants arose during the performance of this work.

The case was referred to a master who found that between the building of the defendant and the dwelling house of the plaintiffs there is a strip of land approximately four feet in width; that the easterly wall of the plaintiffs' house is about four feet from the cement pillars which form part of the westerly wall of the building of the defendant, the brick face of the wall being set back about eight inches from the face of the pillars; that the plaintiffs occupied the middle floor of their dwelling house; that their tenement had three bedrooms, all on the side next to the building of the defendant, which were occupied by the plaintiffs respectively; that the first and third floors were occupied by the plaintiffs' tenants. No claim is made by the plaintiffs that any damage was sustained after September 20, 1930, soon after which date the addition to the building was completed. The master further found that the defendant maintained windows about ten feet high and about six feet wide with steel casings within a few feet of the plaintiffs' bed-rooms; that these windows, which swung on a pivot and were opened and closed by means of a chain, were often closed with ‘a loud, slamming noise’ caused by the contact of the steel frame with the steel casement; that between July, 1929, and the summer of 1930, these windows were frequently slammed about one o'clock in the morning and the plaintiffs were awakened and their rest was seriously disturbed; that complaints were often made to the employees and officials of the defendant by the plaintiff Nugent, but the noise still continued; that these windows, when opened to a horizontal position, extended over the plaintiffs' land a distance of six to eight inches; that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • General Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. Department of Public Works
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1935
    ... ... regulation. As was said in Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 ... U.S. 105, 110, 52 S.Ct. 273, 274, 76 L.Ed. 643, 79 ... Light at ... unseasonable times may be a nuisance, [193 N.E. 815] Nugent v ... Melville Shoe Corp., 280 Mass. 469, 182 N.E. 825; ... Shelburne, ... ...
  • Belmar Drive-In Theatre Co. v. Illinois State Toll Highway Commission
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1966
    ...by injunction or suit for damages. (E.g., The Shelburne, Inc. v. Crossan Corp., 95 N.J.Eq. 188, 122 A. 749; Nugent v. Melville Shoe Corp., 280 Mass. 469, 182 N.E. 825; National Refining Co. v. Batte, 135 Miss. 819, 100 So. 388, 35 A.L.R. 91; Hansen v. Independent School Dist. No. 1, 61 Idah......
  • Godard v. Babson-Dow Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1943
    ...135 N.E. 251, 22 A.L.R. 1197; Cumberland Corp. v. Metropoulos, 241 Mass. 491, 497, 498, 502, 503, 135 N.E. 693;Nugent v. Melville Shoe Corp., 280 Mass. 469, 472, 473, 182 N.E. 825. See Shea v. National Ice Cream Co., Inc., 280 Mass. 206, 182 N.E. 303;Swensen v. Marino, 306 Mass. 582, 29 N.E......
  • Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1948
    ...other factors to the creation thereof. Greene v. Spinning, Mo. App., 48 S.W. (2d) 51; Kellogg v. Mertens, supra; Nugent v. Melville Shoe Corporation, 280 Mass. 469, 182 N.E. 825; Hansen v. Independent School Dist. No. 1, 61 Ida. 109, 98 P. (2d) 959; Russell v. Nostrand Athletic Club, 212 Ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT