Smith v. New England Aircraft Co.
Citation | 170 N.E. 385,270 Mass. 511 |
Parties | SMITH et al. v. NEW ENGLAND AIRCRAFT CO., Inc., et al. |
Decision Date | 04 March 1930 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester County; Lummus, Judge.
Suit by Harry Worcester Smith and others against the New England Aircraft Company, Incorporated, and others. From the decree, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and decree of dismissal ordered.C. F. Choate, of Boston, for appellants.
Ernest H. Vaughan, Edward T. Esty, Jay Clark, Jr., and James A. Crotty, all of Worcester, for appellees.
The plaintiffs seek by this suit to enjoin the defendants from flying over their land and buildings in such manner as to constitute a trespass and nuisance and to enjoin the two corporate defendants from using a field adjacent to their land as a base from which such flights may be made. No money damages are sought. The case was referred to a master, who filed a comprehensive report. There were no objections in writing to his report. The evidence is not printed. Neither side in argument has attacked the facts found by the master. Therefore they will be accepted as true.
The facts thus disclosed so far as material to the grounds of this decision are these: The plaintiffs have for many years owned an estate of about 270 acres known as ‘Lordvale,’ located in Grafton. Upon it are a large and substantial house used as their residence, a library, two small houses, a garage and some other small structures. Considerable sums of money have been expended by the plaintiffs in improving their grounds and buildings. Except for lawn, garden, open space near their home and a mowing or two of small size, substantially the entire tract belonging to the plaintiffs is covered with dense brush and woods. It is used as a country estate and not as a farm. The district where their land lies had been, prior to the establishment of the air field, largely devoted to agriculture and residence. The distance from the plaintiffs' residence to the nearest point of the flying field is about 3,000 feet. The defendant Worcester Airport, Inc., acquired in 1927 about ninety-two acres of land in Grafton adjoining the land of the plaintiffs, and surfaced and constructed it as a flying field with runways and hangars. The expense of purchase and development of the airport exceed $100,000. The Worcester Airport, Inc., then leased the property to the New England Aircraft Company, Incorporated, a corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut, to buy, sell, repair and manufacture aeroplanes and aeroplane material and to develop commercial aeronautics. The lessee maintains the leased property as an airport; that is, as a place where aircraft take off and land, including a flying field and operations incident thereto. This airport is known as Whittall Field. It invites and receives aircraft from various places. It stores, houses and conditions such aircraft. It maintains and operates aircraft and thereby carries passengers from one point to another both within and without this Commonwealth, and also takes passengers up for short flights. It sells aircraft, sometimes making delivery by flying the planes from the factory where made, in Ohio, to its airport. The other defendants own or operate aircraft. The portion of the premises of the plaintiffs abutting on the airport is substantially forty-five feet below its surface. Their land rises to a height even above that of the airport and their residence is at about the same elevation as the airport. During the time involved in the present proceeding, the aircraft owned and operated by the defendants have been of but two types, one a biplane with a motor rated at 90 horse power, and the other a monoplane with a motor rated at 220 horse power. All the aircraft of the defendants are and have been properly licensed and flown in accordance with regulations of both State and Federal authorities. Velocity of the wind and the load carried affect the speed and climbing rate of airplanes. After reciting conducing facts the master finds that, considering all the circumstances, this site was reasonable and proper for a flying field and that it has been properly maintained and reasonably conducted as an airport.
With particular reference to alleged acts of trespass and nuisance it is found that wind direction is a most important factor and that, in view of detailed findings on this point, it is apparent that a large proportion of these flights from this airport have been and under existing conditions must continue to be made over the land of the plaintiffs in future utilization of the flying field.
Further findings of the master are that all of the defendants (except the Worcester Airport, Inc.) made numberous flights during 1928.
1. Apart from the circumstance that aircraft have been operated vertically above land of the plaintiffs, it is plain under our decisions that upon the findings of the master there is no sound ground for injunctive relief on the theory that the acts of the defendants constitute a nuisance. The law affords no rigid rule to be used as a test in all instances of alleged nuisance. It is elastic. It requires only that which is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The noise, proximity and number of the aircraft have not been such in the case at bar as to be harmful to the health or comfort of ordinary people....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thornburg v. Port of Portland
...Braniff Airways v. Nebraska State Board, 347 U.S. 590, 596, 74 S.Ct. 757, 98 L.Ed. 967 (1954); Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., Inc., 270 Mass. 511, 525, 526, 170 N.E. 385, 69 A.L.R. 300 (1930).3 Where a slaughterhouse had maintained a stench for 20 years, held: it had acquired a prescrip......
-
Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corporation
...Ohio act, while recognizing the existing public right of avigation, does not in express terms, as other acts do (Smith v. New England Aircraft Co. Mass. 170 N. E. 385, 391), fix the altitude at which such avigation must lawfully take place. But we think it is clear from the foregoing review......
-
State v. Northwest Airlines
...and subject to its sovereign power. As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has said in Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., Inc., 270 Mass. 511, 521, 170 N.E. 385, 389, 69 A.L.R. 300, 308: "It is essential to the safety of sovereign States that they possess jurisdiction to control the......
-
Boston Elevated Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth
...136, 11 L.R.A., N.S., 968, 6 Ann.Cas. 842, and quoted with approval by Chief Justice Rugg in Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., Inc., 270 Mass. 511, 522, 523, 170 N.E. 385, 390, 69 A.L.R. 300: ‘The nature of the policy power and its extent, as applied to conceivable cases, cannot easily be ......
-
Drones and Jones: Rethinking Curtilage Flyover in Light of the Revived Fourth Amendment Trespass Doctrine
...to everything between the land surface and the center of the planet.”). 213 Hannabalson v. Sessions, 90 N.W. 93, 95 (Iowa 1902). 214 170 N.E. 385 (Mass. 1930). 215 Id. at 393. 216 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 159(2) (1965) (“Flight by aircraft in the air space above the land of another i......