O'Reilly v. Perkins
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Bill in Equity seeking a mandatory injunction. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
We are of opinion that the demurrer to the bill should be sustained.(1) The complainants do not set out the location of their residences with reference to the defendants’ estate with sufficient definiteness to show that the annoyances threatened would he appreciable to them. Siskiyou Lumber Co. v. Rostel, 121 Cal. 511.
The complainants, through their counsel, admit that a brewery per se is not a nuisance ; and they do not allege any threat, or any facts from which a threat can be inferred, on the part of the defendants to conduct and operate the brewery so as to make it harmful to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Coker v. BirgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
- Bowen v. MauzyIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Siskiyou Lumber & Mercantile Co. v. RostelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Moses v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. Lead Industries, Ass'n, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2008
- McIntosh v. BrimmerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Village of Bennington v. HawksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1926
- Commerce Oil Refining Corp. v. MinerDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1958
- Allgemeiner Arbeiter Verein v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955