Singer v. James
| Decision Date | 13 March 1917 |
| Docket Number | 13. |
| Citation | 100 A. 642,130 Md. 382 |
| Parties | SINGER v. JAMES. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County, in Equity; Frank I Duncan, Judge.
Injunction by Frank O. Singer, Jr., against Charles I. James. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
Mason P. Morfit, of Baltimore, for appellant.
Luther M. R. Willis, of Baltimore (George R. Willis, of Baltimore on the brief), for appellee.
The questions in this case arise upon a bill in equity, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in the circuit court for Baltimore county, for an injunction to abate and to restrain the defendant from maintaining an alleged nuisance upon his premises adjoining those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land situate on the Frederick and North Bend road, near Catonsville, Baltimore county, and about a mile and a half from the limits of the city of Baltimore. The property is improved by a large and commodious dwelling and other buildings, and the dwelling is occupied by the plaintiff and his family as a residence. The defendant is the owner of a tract of land adjoining the plaintiff's property improved by a dwelling house in which the defendant resides with his family, and upon this property he is engaged in the business of raising for sale poultry, hogs, and dogs the latter for exhibition in shows, and also for sale.
The bill alleges that the defendant has now and has had for some time past confined within the narrow limits of a small lot near the northeastern boundary line of his land and adjoining the property of the plaintiff a large number of fowls, hogs and dogs, namely, 500 or more chickens, 200 or more ducks, 50 or more geese, a large number of guinea fowl and turkeys, also one or more dog kennels containing 50 or more dogs, and several or more hogpens containing 40 hogs, and that he also keeps and maintains on the premises one or more cows, calves, and horses. The bill then avers that by reason of the locality and of the proximity of the inclosures wherein the property of the defendant is kept, the noises made by the fowls and hogs, the barking and whining of the dogs have deprived the plaintiff and the members of his family of the reasonable use and enjoyment of his residence and dwelling house. The bill further alleges that by reason of the erection of the several buildings and their inclosures, the odors and noxious smells coming from them, and the lot of ground wherein the poultry and animals are confined, permeate, and are constantly thrown in the dwelling house, and are to such an extent offensive as to be injurious to the health of those occupying the dwelling house, and to deprive him of the comfortable enjoyment of the same.
The prayer of the bill is for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant: First, to abate the nuisance of the noises and foul smells and odors, and also the nuisance of passing or flowing or permitting to pass or flow the drainage and foul matter or water from the defendant's hogpens and stables into and on the land of the plaintiff; second, restraining and enjoining the defendant from keeping or permitting to remain on the premises a great number of fowls, hogs, and dogs, save and except in such manner that the noises made by the same shall not deprive the plaintiff and the members of his family from the reasonable use and comfortable enjoyment of his property and the dwelling house thereon; third, that the defendant may be enjoined and restrained from causing or permitting foul odors or smells from the hogpens and stables on defendant's property to pass on and into the property of the plaintiff and his dwelling house; fourth, that a mandatory injunction may issue requiring the defendant, his servants and employés, to cease from casting the drainage and foul matter or permitting the same to be cast or to pass or to flow into and on the lands of the plaintiff; and, fifth, a prayer for general relief. The defendant answered the bill, denying the existence of the nuisance, and the case was heard in open court upon bill, answer, and proof. A decree was passed granting the injunction, and from that decree this appeal has been taken.
The decree, it will be seen, was divided into three parts, and an injunction directed to be issued as follows: First restraining and enjoining the defendant from keeping or permitting others to keep or to remain on his premises such a great number of fowls, hogs, and dogs that the noise made by the same shall deprive the plaintiff and members of his family from the reasonable use and comfortable enjoyment of the plaintiff's property and dwelling house mentioned in the bill of complaint; second, restraining and enjoining the defendant from causing or permitting any foul drainage, foul matter, or water from flowing or passing from any barnyard, cowyard, chicken yard, hogpen, or stable on the defendant's property over or into the plaintiff's property; and, third, from causing or permitting any foul odors...
To continue reading
Request your trial