Wright v. Ulrich
| Decision Date | 01 July 1907 |
| Parties | WRIGHT et al. v. ULRICH. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Fremont County; M. S. Bailey, Judge.
Suit by Lucinda Ulrich against Samuel A. Wright and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Maupin McLain & Wilkes, for appellants.
Taylor & Sayre, for appellee.
This suit was instituted in the district court of Fremont county by the appellee, plaintiff below, to restrain the appellants from rebuilding and operating a slaughter house adjacent to plaintiff's premises and dwelling house which she and her family had occupied for about 20 years. It seems that the first slaughter house, which had been erected some 8 or 10 years prior to the commencement of this suit was destroyed by fire, and that plaintiff had objected to the rebuilding of the house, and had objected to and complained of the injury and inconvenience to her on account of the odors from the slaughter house and its use and the noise resulting from the keeping of cattle in pens adjacent to the slaughter house. The answer in effect is a denial of the allegations of the complaint, and defendants also plead the statute of limitations.
The main contention of appellants as set forth in their brief is that there is not sufficient evidence to support the allegations of the complaint, that there is not sufficient evidence to support the judgment, and that the judgment is based upon 'a remote sentiment of future possible annoyance, not warranted by the facts.' The record does not support this contention. It is clearly shown by the abstract, and the additional abstract filed by appellee, that the plaintiff had suffered much annoyance and inconvenience because of the odors and stenches which had emanated from the use of the slaughter house. This is shown, not only by the evidence of her own family, but strangers to the suit testified positively as to the sickening odors which had reached them from the slaughter house at a point about the same distance therefrom as plaintiff's dwelling house. Indeed, there was not very much conflicting testimony. However, this matter was submitted to a judicial determination, and the court found as a fact that the maintenance and operation of the slaughter house and its adjuncts by defendants 'constituted and constitutes a continuing nuisance, resulting in rendering plaintiff's occupancy of her dwelling house and premises described in the complaint in this cause disagreeable and uncomfortable by reason of the noxious vapors and noisome smells and stenches emitted therefrom, which are a constant menace to the health of plaintiff and her family, materially impair the usefulness of said property, and greatly decrease...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoery v. US
...wrongful acts for which the United States was responsible and constituted continuing torts under our decision in Wright v. Ulrich, 40 Colo. 437, 91 P. 43 (1907). In the alternative, the United States asserted that Mr. Hoery's claims were permanent torts under our irrigation ditch cases and ......
-
Middelkamp v. Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co.
...cited are not applicable to conditions existing in the construction and operation of an irrigation ditch. The case of Wright et al. v. Ulrich, 40 Colo. 437, 91 P. 43, the construction of a slaughter house, where one operated had been burned, clearly an abatable common-law nuisance. The case......
-
Patel v. Thomas
...(conspiracy claim evidenced in part by assaults and other acts occurring prior to statute of limitations not barred); Wright v. Ulrich, 40 Colo. 437, 91 P. 43 (1907) (because a nuisance or trespass is continuous, plaintiff may seek a decree abating it at any time during its existence unless......
-
Sitterle v. Victoria Cold Storage Co.
...772, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 733; Smith v. Cummings, 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 92; Pruner v. Pendleton, 75 Va. 516, 40 Am. Rep. 738; Wright v. Ulrich, 40 Colo. 437, 91 P. 43; Bishop v. Banks, 33 Conn. 118, 87 Am. Dec. 197; Minke v. Hopeman, 87 Ill. 450, 29 Am. Rep. 63; Moses v. State, 58 Ind. 185; ......
-
Chapter 10 - § 10.17 • NUISANCE
...497 P.2d 1004 (Colo. 1972) (even when permitted by zoning regulations, uses constituting nuisance may be enjoined); Wright v. Ulrich, 40 Colo. 437, 91 P. 43 (1907) (any private nuisance may be abated by party aggrieved); Staley v. Sagel, 841 P.2d 379 (Colo. App. 1992) (limited injunction re......
-
Chapter 6 - § 6.6 • NUISANCE AND WASTE
...standard that it would be of definite offensiveness, inconvenience, or annoyance to a normal person in the community"); Wright v. Ulrich, 40 Colo. 437, 91 P. 43 (1907). [A]ny act, omission or use of property which results in polluting the atmosphere with noxious or offensive effluvia, gasse......