Francis v. . Schoellkopf
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of tne Superior Court of Buffalo, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict. The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged nuisance. The prominent facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. It was error for the court to hold that plaintiff could recover if the jury found that the tannery was a common or public nuisance, and it decreased the rental value of her premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of tne Superior Court of Buffalo, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict. The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged nuisance. The prominent facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. It was error for the court to hold that plaintiff could recover if the jury found that the tannery was a common or public nuisance, and it decreased the rental value of her premises. (Lansing v. Smith, 8 Cow., 146, 156; Dougherty v. Bunting, 1 Sandf., 1; Radcliff’s Exrs. v. Mayor, etc., 4 Com., 195, 206; Gould v. H. R. R. R. Co., 2…
1Opinion of the CourtGrover, J.
The motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The plaintiff proved title to a lot in Buffalo, upon which were situated two houses; that the defendant was in possession of a lot situate about seventy-five feet from her’s, upon which he carried on the business of tanning and boiling putrid animal matter in such a way as to create nuisance and offensive smells to such a degree as to render the houses of the plaintiff nearly unfit for habitation, by means of which she was unable to rent one of her houses at all for a portion of the time, and for the residue was obliged to rent it for a less sum…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lansing v. SmithCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
- Milhau v. . SharpNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
3Cited by106 opinions
- Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. LindnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Bohm v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Chipman v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Ackerman v. . TrueNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
101 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.