Kearney v. Farrell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action on the case for a nuisance. The declaration contained two counts, the first for the keeping of a privy and pigsty so near to the dwelling-house of the plaintiff as to be a nuisance, the second for the keeping of the pig-sty only.
Read the full summary
Action on the case for a nuisance. The declaration contained two counts, the first for the keeping of a privy and pigsty so near to the dwelling-house of the plaintiff as to be a nuisance, the second for the keeping of the pig-sty only. On the trial to the jury the plaintiff offered evidence to prove that the privy and pig-sty, mentioned in the first count of the declaration, were so near his dwelling-house that the air was corrupted by noisome effluvia from them, and the *house thereby rendered uncomfortable and unwhole- [ *318 ] some as a habitation for himself and his family. The defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.
Three questions were raised in this case, and they will be considered in the order An which they stand upon the record. '
The defendant complains, in the first place, that the court erred in admitting the opinion of the witnesses, although connected with the facts on which the opinion was Based, upon the question whether the privies and sties described in the declaration were, or were not, nuisances, and so nuisances that they *261must and would make the plaintiff’s house uncomfortable. The witnesses testified that they were acquainted with the effects which privies and sties have upon the air…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Porter v. Pequonnoc Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
3Cited by19 opinions
- Hopt v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- State v. SaucierSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- United States Smelting Co. v. SisamCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1911
- Oklahoma City v. EylarSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Pierce v. WagnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.