PARTIES: P = Ensign and others D = Walls
PRIOR HISTORY: Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant’s business constitutes a nuisance. Trial court enjoined defendant from continuing her business after 90 days. Defendant appealed.
FACTS: For some years, at 13949 Dacosta street, in the city of Detroit, the Defendant had a business of raising, breeding and boarding St. Bernard dogs. Her business is adjacent to the Plaintiff's neighbor, Defendant's business would give off obnoxious odors and constant barking. The court found that Defendant’s business represented a nuisance to Plaintiffs, and that Defendant had not acquired the right to continue the nuisance by prescriptive use of the property. Defendant appealed.
ISSUE: Regardless of whether …show more content…
The complaint alleged that obnoxious odors came from Defendant’s premises and the continual barking of the dogs interfered and disturbed the Plaintiff's enjoyment of their respective properties. Plaintiffs also stated that Defendant’s premises were infested with rats and flies, and that on occasion, dogs escaped from their premises and roamed the neighborhood. Defendant claimed that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction, because many of the Plaintiffs had just recently moved into the area, and were aware of Defendant’s business prior to their move.
HOLDING: YES.
RULE: The fact that an alleged nuisance existed long before those objecting to it moved into the vicinity does not necessarily prevent a court from ordering it abated. Carrying on an offensive trade for any number of years in a place away from buildings and public roads , does not mean that owners can continue from the same location when more and more houses build nearby. The fact that the Plaintiffs “ came to the nuisance” is not a defense.
REASONING: The court must consider that the noise already existed before the Plaintiff, but because more and more people moved around. It also needs to be considered if the Defendant does not stop his business, will bring more people to the
PRIOR HISTORY: Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant’s business constitutes a nuisance. Trial court enjoined defendant from continuing her business after 90 days. Defendant appealed.
FACTS: For some years, at 13949 Dacosta street, in the city of Detroit, the Defendant had a business of raising, breeding and boarding St. Bernard dogs. Her business is adjacent to the Plaintiff's neighbor, Defendant's business would give off obnoxious odors and constant barking. The court found that Defendant’s business represented a nuisance to Plaintiffs, and that Defendant had not acquired the right to continue the nuisance by prescriptive use of the property. Defendant appealed.
ISSUE: Regardless of whether …show more content…
The complaint alleged that obnoxious odors came from Defendant’s premises and the continual barking of the dogs interfered and disturbed the Plaintiff's enjoyment of their respective properties. Plaintiffs also stated that Defendant’s premises were infested with rats and flies, and that on occasion, dogs escaped from their premises and roamed the neighborhood. Defendant claimed that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction, because many of the Plaintiffs had just recently moved into the area, and were aware of Defendant’s business prior to their move.
HOLDING: YES.
RULE: The fact that an alleged nuisance existed long before those objecting to it moved into the vicinity does not necessarily prevent a court from ordering it abated. Carrying on an offensive trade for any number of years in a place away from buildings and public roads , does not mean that owners can continue from the same location when more and more houses build nearby. The fact that the Plaintiffs “ came to the nuisance” is not a defense.
REASONING: The court must consider that the noise already existed before the Plaintiff, but because more and more people moved around. It also needs to be considered if the Defendant does not stop his business, will bring more people to the