Rhoades v. Cook

• Decision Date: 22 January 1904
• Citation: 98 N.W. 122,122 Iowa 336
• Parties: W. M. RHOADES, Appellant, v. ED. COOK, Appellee
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

98 N.W. 122

122 Iowa 336

W. M. RHOADES, Appellant, v. ED. COOK, Appellee

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 22, 1904

Appeal from Jasper District Court.--HON. JOHN F. SCOTT, Judge.

SUIT in equity to enjoin the maintenance and continuance of a nuisance. From a decree dismissing plaintiff's petition he appeals.

Reversed.

W. O McElroy and Harrah & Myers for appellant.

Ralph F. Graham and H. C. Korf for appellee.

OPINION

DEEMER, C. J.

Plaintiff and defendant own and occupy adjoining lots on the public square in the city of Newton. Plaintiff deals in wall paper pictures, and art works of various kinds, while defendant conducts a meat market and butcher shop. Defendant's building is west of plaintiff's, and its location may account for a conflict which appears in the evidence. But however this may be, there is no doubt, under the evidence that defendant has occasionally slaughtered young animals in the rear rooms of his building, and that he at least twice a week renders lard and tallow in this room. There is also evidence of the presence of tainted and spoiled meats in the building. There is no doubt of the presence of noxious and offensive smells from defendant's building, especially on the days when he converts his back room into a rendering establishment. A slaughterhouse in a city or public place, or where numerous persons reside, is prima facie a nuisance. Bushnell v. Robeson, 62 Iowa 540, 17 N.W. 888. And we think the same rule should apply to melting or rendering establishments. Peck v. Elder, 3 Sandf. 126; Seacord v. People, 121 Ill. 623 (13 N.E. 194). It may be that defendant has generally exercised ordinary care in the conduct of this business, but, notwithstanding such care it was productive of odors which were offensive to those within their range, and necessarily produced physical discomfort. The evidence leaves no doubt of the presence of disagreeable and offensive odors on every rendering day. True, they have not been so bad since defendant changed the flue which carried some of the smoke out into the open air, but it would be impossible to conduct a melting establishment such as defendant was running, without the presence of offensive smells. Under our statutes, anything which produces noxious exhalations, offensive smells, or other annoyances injurious to the health, comfort, or property of individuals, is a nuisance. It is not necessary that these odors be deleterious...