Norcross v. Thoms
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions, to the ruling of Cutting, J. Case to recover damages by reason of an alleged nuisance maintained by the defendant.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions, to the ruling of Cutting, J. Case to recover damages by reason of an alleged nuisance maintained by the defendant. It was proved that the defendant moved a blacksmith’s shop within twelve feet of the plaintiff’s hotel, and that, by reason of the black cinders, dust and ashes arising from the shop, the plaintiff was injured in his property and subjected to inconvenience and loss. . Defendant contended that a blacksmith shop is not in itself a nuisance; and that the injury alleged and proved by plaintiff did not bring said shop within the legal definition of nuisance, and that…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Dickerson, J.
This is an action on the case for an in*504jury sustained on account of an alleged nuisance. This form of action, as its name imports, is the appropriate remedy for injuries arising in particular cases which do not fall within the ancient and technical formulas, and which would otherwise be without remedy.
It is not practicable to give a precise, technical definition of what constitutes á nuisance at common law. Blackstone in his Commentaries, vol. 3, p. 215, defines a nuisance to signify "anything that worbeth hurt, .inconvenience, or damage.”…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brady v. WeeksNew York Supreme Court · 1848
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pettengill v. TuroSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1963
- Krueger v. FerrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Kuhn v. Sol. Heavenrich Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Texarkana v. LeachSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Johnston v. ME. ENERGY RECOVERY, LTD. P'SHIPSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.