Yates v. Tiffiny
| Decision Date | 17 March 1927 |
| Citation | 136 A. 668 |
| Parties | YATES et al. v. TIFFINY. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Knox County, at Law.
Action by Charles F. Yates and another against George R. Tiffiny. A general demurrer was overruled, and defendant excepts. Exception overruled.
Argued before WILSON, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, DEASY, STURGIS, and BARNES, JJ.
O. H. Emery, of Camden, for plaintiffs.
J. H. Montgomery, of Camden, for defendant.
STURGIS, J. Action on the case to recover damages for obstructing a public highway. General demurrer filed and overruled. Exception reserved.
The declaration sets out that the defendant erected a fence and building upon a certain public highway in Camden, known as Cottage street, over which the plaintiffs had a right to travel.
An obstruction placed within the limits of a public way is a nuisance at common law and by statute. R. S. c. 23, § 5; Smith v. Preston, 104 Me. 156, 71 A. 653; Corthell v. Holmes, 88 Me. 376, 34 A. 173. One who has sustained special damage from a common nuisance may recover therefor in an action on the case. R. S. c. 23, § 16; Smith v. Preston, supra; Staples v. Dickson, 88 Me. 362, 34 A. 168; Brown v. Watson, 47 Me. 161, 74 Am. Dec. 482.
It sufficiently appears in the plaintiffs' declaration that they were entitled to use the obstructed portion of the way for egress and ingress to their premises and in a special manner not common to the public. To reach Mill street, a public way in the village, from the Cottage street side of their premises, they were obliged to pass over the obstructed section of the way. The fence and building not only obstructed the plaintiffs' right in common with others to pass up and down the street, but cut off their right of access to their private property. This constitutes special injury, differing in kind and degree from that suffered by the community at large. Smart v. Lumber Co., 103 Me. 37, 68 A. 527, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1083; Cobe v. Banton, 106 Me. 418, 76 A. 907.
The declaration states a legal cause of action, and is sufficient on general demurrer.
Exception overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v. H. F. Farnham Co.
...Me. 156, 71 A. 653; Cobe v. Banton, 106 Me. 418, 76 A. 907; Mitchell v. Bangor & A. Railroad Co., 123 Me. 176, 122 A. 415; Yates v. Tiffiny, 126 Me. 128, 136 A. 668. See, too, Pennsylvania, etc., Co. v. Graham, 63 Pa. 290, 3 Am.Rep. 549. The torts of negligence and nuisance may be, and freq......
-
Smedberg v. Moxie Dam Co.
...of Marion, 110 Me. 460, 86 A. 980, 46 L.R.A., N.S., 35 (obstruction to stream by bridge-increasing expense of log driving); Yates v. Tiffiny, 126 Me. 128, 136 A. 668 (obstruction to highway cutting off right of access to private property); Larson v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 141 Me. 326,......
-
Fleming v. State Road Dept.
... ... 761; ... Morrow v. Richardson, 278 Ky. 233, 128 S.W.2d 560; ... Ginter-Wardein Co. v. City of Alton, 370 Ill. 101, ... 17 N.E.2d 976; Yates v. Tiffiny, 126 Me. 128, 136 A ... 668; Rose v. State, 19 Cal.2d 713, 123 P.2d 505; ... City of Rome v. Lecroy, 59 Ga.App. 644, 1 S.E.2d ... 759; ... ...
- Merriam v. Jones