Whittemore v. Baxter Laundry Co.

Citation181 Mich. 564,148 N.W. 437
Decision Date24 July 1914
Docket NumberNo. 295.,295.
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

181 Mich. 564
148 N.W. 437


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.


[148 N.W. 437]

Wilson & Johnson, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Corwin & Souter, of Grand Rapids, for appellees.


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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Doe v. Johnson, 5:92:CV:125.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • 18 février 1993
    ...Road Comm'rs., 5 Mich.App. 370, 146 N.W.2d 702 (1966), aff'd, 381 Mich. 363, 161 N.W.2d 561 (1968); Whittemore v. Baxter Laundry Co., 181 Mich. 564, 148 N.W. 437 (1914); Mulcahy v. Argo Steel Constr. Co., 4 Mich.App. 116, 144 N.W.2d 614 (1966)); accord Avemco Ins. Co., Inc. v. Rooto Corp., ......
  • City of Marysville v. Standard Oil Co., 7868.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 28 mai 1928
    ...devices is fully supported by the evidence and by court decisions dealing with such questions. In Whittemore v. Baxter Laundry Co., 181 Mich. 564, 148 N. W. 437, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 930, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 818, the court "We may also concede that in the instant case every precaution that huma......
  • Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., Docket No. 88897
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 28 juillet 1992
    ...and distinguishing nuisance from trespass, the Court of Appeals relied on this Court's opinions in Whittemore v. Baxter Laundry Co., 181 Mich. 564, 148 N.W. 437 (1914), and Hadfield v. Oakland Co. Drain Comm'r., 430 Mich. 139, 151, 422 N.W.2d 205 (1988), citing Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ......
  • Mooney v. Monark Gasoline & Oil Co., 25934
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 septembre 1927
    ...of its employees. Kings Co. Ins. Co. v. Swigert, 11 Ill.App. 590; Socola v. Chess Carley Co., 29 La. Ann. 344; Whittemore v. Laundry Co., 181 Mich. 564; McLawson v. Paragon Ref. Co., 198 Mich. 222; Ormsby v. A. B. C. Co., 253 S.W. 668; Myers v. Payne, 227 S.W. 633; Henderson v. Wilson Stove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT