Whittemore v. Baxter Laundry Co.

• Citation: 181 Mich. 564,148 N.W. 437
• Decision Date: 24 July 1914
• Docket Number: No. 295.,295.
• Parties: WHITTEMORE et al. v. BAXTER LAUNDRY CO.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

181 Mich. 564
148 N.W. 437

WHITTEMORE et al.
v.
BAXTER LAUNDRY CO.

No. 295.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 24, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County, in Chancery; William B. Brown, Judge.

Bill by Arthur W. Whittemore and others against the Baxter Laundry Company From a decree for complainants, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before McALVAY, C. J., and KUHN, STONE, OSTRANDER, BIRD, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.

[148 N.W. 437]

Wilson & Johnson, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Corwin & Souter, of Grand Rapids, for appellees.

KUHN, J.

The defendant is the owner of a laundry and dry-cleaning establishment in the city of Grand Rapids, occupying the easterly portion of a block bounded on the north by Hawthorne street, on the east by Eastern avenue, on the south by Fountain street, and on the west by Grand avenue. The complainants are the owners of property, and reside, in the westerly portion of the block. With the exception of defendant's plant, the location is strictly a residence district, and the complainant Arthur W. Whittemore owns and occupies a house and lot immediately adjoining defendant's premises on the west, and the defendant's property is practically surrounded by residences costing from $3,500 to $4,500 each. In its business of dry cleaning the defendant uses about 15,000 gallons of gasoline annually, and, just previous to the filing of the bill in this case, the defendant had placed in its yards two large steel tanks of the capacity of 10,000 gallons each, and had commenced excavating preparatory to burying them in the northwest corner of its premises, which was the farthest possible point on its premises from its own buildings and immediately adjoining the property of the complainant Whittemore, the nearest tank being about 11 feet from his house. The bill of complaint filed asked for a temporary injunction restraining defendant from storing gasoline in the tanks, for the reason that such storage, under the circumstances of this case, would be a private nuisance, and also that it would be in violation of certain ordinances of the city of Grand Rapids. When the bill was filed an injunction was issued restraining the defendant from storing gasoline in the tanks, which was made permanent when the case was heard on its merits.

[1][2] In Heeg v. Licht, 80 N. Y. 579, 582 (36 Am. Rep. 654), the court, speaking of private nuisances, said:

‘A private nuisance is defined to be anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments...