Reichert v. Geers
| Decision Date | 18 October 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,454 |
| Citation | 98 Ind. 73 |
| Parties | Reichert et al. v. Geers et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Wayne Circuit Court.
W. A Bickle, for appellants.
H. C Fox, for appellees.
Appellees brought this suit to enjoin appellants from continuing a nuisance in the use of a certain slaughter-house, in the city of Richmond, Indiana.
An issue was formed upon the complaint by a denial. There was a trial by the court, finding for plaintiffs, and, over a motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered for plaintiffs A. motion to modify the judgment was also overruled.
The errors complained of and insisted upon are the overruling of the motion for a new trial and the motion to modify the judgment.
The slaughter-house complained of was situate on the bank of White Water river, in the midst of three other slaughter-houses, two above and one below, in the southwest part of the city, all of which discharged the offal and refuse matter into the bed of the river, to be carried off south away from the city by the running water in the stream.
The plaintiff Geers resided about one hundred yards from defendants' slaughter-house, and the plaintiff Merings about three hundred yards distant on the west side of the river. There were from four hundred to five hundred people residing within a radius of one-eighth of a mile of the slaughter-house; the most of them northeast thereof, and composing the southwest part of the population of the city; the river running south upon the west side of the city. Southeast of the slaughter-house the lands were low, wet and unimproved.
The complaint charges that the defendants kept their slaughter-house in an unclean, impure and filthy condition, so as to allow the offal and refuse animal matter to be and remain in and about the premises until they became putrid and decayed, filling the air with noxious and offensive odors; the gathering in and keeping in pens upon the premises all kinds of stock preparatory to slaughter, and permitting the pens to become foul and filthy, until they emitted offensive odors, and the causing of unusual, loud and hideous noises by the stock while in the pens, and their groans and outcries while being killed, both by day and in the night time, so as to essentially interfere with the plaintiffs, and the citizens residing in the immediate vicinity thereof, comfortably living upon and enjoying their property.
The evidence is conflicting as to the manner in which the defendants' slaughter-house had been kept for two or three years preceding the trial. There was evidence on the part of the plaintiffs clearly tending to prove the truth of the charges in the complaint, and to sustain the finding of the court. In such cases this court will not weigh the evidence and reverse the judgment on account of the overruling of a motion for a new trial, based upon the weight of the evidence.
The court rendered judgment "that the defendants and each of them, agents and employees and servants, be and they are hereby perpetually enjoined from carrying on, maintaining and operating a slaughter-house, or permitting the same to be done by others, for the purpose of killing, slaughtering and butchering hogs, cattle, sheep and other animals upon the lands owned by defendants, or either of them, as described in the complaint and situate within the corporate limits of the city of Richmond, Wayne county, Indiana, and bounded as follows, to wit:" After giving a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aufderheide v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
...60 Iowa, 505; Holke v. Herman, 87 Mo. App. 142; 1 Wood on Nuisances (3 Ed.) sec. 100; 1 High on Injunctions (4 Ed.) sec. 774; Reichert v. Geers, 98 Ind. 73; Wolcott v. Melick, 11 N.J. Eq. 204. (b) If complainants' right is doubtful, or the thing which it is sought to restrain is not a nuisa......
-
Aufderheide v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
...60 Iowa 505; Holke v. Herman, 87 Mo.App. 142; 1 Wood on Nuisances (3 Ed.) sec. 100; 1 High on Injunctions (4 Ed.) sec. 774; Reichert v. Geers, 98 Ind. 73; Wolcott Melick, 11 N.J.Eq. 204. (b) If complainants' right is doubtful, or the thing which it is sought to restrain is not a nuisance pe......
-
Sitterle v. Victoria Cold Storage Co.
...been regarded generally as nuisances on account of the noxious vapors and noisome smells and stenches emitted therefrom." Reichert v. Geers, 98 Ind. 73, 49 Am. Rep. 736; Bushnell v. Robeson, 62 Iowa, 540, 17 N. W. 888; Rhoades v. Cook, 122 Iowa, 336, 98 N. W. 122; Seifried v. Hays, 81 Ky. 3......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Allen
...such a cause of action as appellee could maintain under the act of March 6, 1883. Kirby's Digest, § 6285; 53 Ark. 125, 126; 89 Miss. 321; 98 Ind. 73; 29 Md. 2. Appellant was under such legal obligation to provide surgical attention to deceased as would involve it in legal liability in case ......