Sellers v. Parvis & Williams Co.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1886 |
| Citation | 30 F. 164 |
| Parties | SELLERS v. PARVIS & WILLIAMS CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Hoffecker & Hoffecker and James C. Sellers, for complainant.
John Biggs and Thomas Davis, for defendant.
This is a motion for a preliminary injunction. The complainant is the owner of a farm in New Castle county, containing about 290 acres, bounded on the east by a public road. Opposite to the southerly part of the farm, and separated from it by the road, the defendant has erected works for the manufacturing of agricultural fertilizers; and it is alleged that the fumes, vapors, and gases generated by the works, and blown across the farm, blight, poison, and destroy the fruit grain, and other crops of the complainant; that in the year 1885 many of the trees in the complainant's orchard bordering on the road, were destroyed or seriously injured and her corn crop ruined. In addition to this, the noisome odors and foul smells emanating from the works are so offensive and sickening as to be almost unendurable, and the occupants of the mansion house are frequently compelled to close the doors and windows to protect themselves as much as possible from the annoyance and physical discomfort produced by the nuisance. Inasmuch as this nuisance is recurring at short and irregular intervals, and threatens to be continued and increase, thus depriving the complainant of the beneficial enjoyment of her property, and diminishing its rental and marketable value, and she is without a plain and adequate remedy at law, a motion is now made for a writ of injunction, pendente lite, to restrain the defendant from further prosecuting its business.
The defendant company, by the affidavit of its president, states that the business of making fertilizers has been carried on by them, and their predecessors, at the same place, since 1883; the capital invested is $20,000; 56 men are employed in the works; and the annual sales amount to $50,000. Injury to the complainant's property is denied, as well as the personal annoyance and discomfort alleged to be caused by the factory. It is indirectly admitted that some annoyance may be suffered occasionally, when an easterly storm is prevailing, and the process of dissolving rock is being carried on; but that this process is not continuous, and does not consume, on an average, more then 34 days in the year. In clear weather no trouble is perceptible. Reference is made to an agreement entered into between the complainant and her husband on the one part, and Parvis and Williams on the other, in 1884 or 1885, by which it was arranged that, if any damage should be done to the complainant's peach orchard by the factory, the amount thereof should be ascertained by three disinterested persons, and that the company is willing to abide by the said agreement, and to pay any loss the complainant may have suffered from such cause. The company owns about two and a half acres of land immediately around and adjoining the factory, on which, during the years 1884 and 1885, crops of vegetables and grass were successfully grown, and the hedge inclosing the said land was uninjured by the works. If an injunction should now be issued, the company would be obliged to shut down, and its business would be ruined.
When a plain and adequate remedy at law cannot be obtained,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Godfrey
...all, or, if a nuisance, one of which the milling company, complainant, has any right to complain. ' The same thing is true of Sellers v. Parvis (C.C.) 30 F. 164, the reason for the conclusion of the court is found in a quotation from the opinion, at pages 166, 167, where it is said: 'A prel......
-
United States v. Luce
...a dwelling an action at law furnishes no adequate remedy, and the party injured is entitled to protection by injunction.' In Sellers v. Parvis & Williams Co., supra, this court, Wales, J., said: 'When a plain and adequate remedy at law cannot be obtained, the power of a court of equity to a......
-
Pruett v. Dayton
...Nor is mere diminution of value of property, without more, sufficient to justify the granting of relief. See Sellers v. Parvis & Williams, C.C.Del., 30 F. 164. It is understandable that these plaintiffs want the sanitary land-fill operation located elsewhere. But this court cannot interfere......
-
City of Louisville v. National Carbide Corporation
...irreparable injury, interminable litigation, a multiciplicity of actions, and for the protection of rights." Sellers v. Parvis & Williams Co., C.C.Del., 30 F. 164, 165. The Supreme Court has thus defined a nuisance in the case of Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U.S. ......