ENSIGN V. WALLS
323 Mich. 49, 34 N.W.2d 549 (1948)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Ensign (P) brought suit against Walls (D) claiming that her business
constituted a nuisance as to them and their property and seeking injunctive relief. The
court enjoined the continuation of the business after 90 days and required the business
owner to abate the nuisance. D appealed.
FACTS: D raises, breeds and boards St. Bernard dogs. P are nearby property owners. P sued
for injunctive relief, claiming that the obnoxious odors always coming from D's premises and
the continual barking of the dogs interfered with and disturbed Ps in the use and enjoyment
of their property. D denied that her business was a nuisance. D also stated that she had
been in this business for about twenty years and had spent considerable time and money in
the business. D claims that P is not entitled to the injunction, particularly since most of
the Ps had just recently moved into the area, and thus were aware of D's business. The court
found that D's business represented a nuisance to P, and that D had not acquired by
prescriptive use the right to continue the nuisance. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment