Michalson v. Nutting case brief summary
175 N.E. 490 (Mass. 1931)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs brought a bill in equity alleging that roots from a poplar tree growing upon the land of defendants had penetrated plaintiffs' land and had filled up sewer and drain pipes there, causing damages, an also had had grown under the cement cellar of the plaintiffs' house, causing damages. They sought a mandatory injunction compelling the removal of the roots, a permanent injunction restraining defendants from allowing the roots to encroach on plaintiffs' land, and damages.
TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS
The trial judge ruled that upon the facts admitted and found to be true there was no liability on the part of defendants for the clogging of the sewer and the moving of the wall by the roots of the tree, the trunk of which stood on defendants' land, and he ordered a decree dismissing the bill with costs. Plaintiffs appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court found no error and affirmed the decree that dismissed plaintiffs' bill in equity with costs. There was no liability on the part of defendants for the clogging of the sewer and the moving of the wall by the roots of the tree, the trunk of which stood on defendants' land.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
175 N.E. 490 (Mass. 1931)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff property owners
appealed a decision of the Superior Court, Worcester,
(Massachusetts), which found no liability on the part of defendant
property owners for the clogging of the sewer and the moving of the
wall of plaintiffs' home by the roots of the tree, the trunk of which
stood on defendants' land. The trial judge dismissed the bill in
equity with costs.CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs brought a bill in equity alleging that roots from a poplar tree growing upon the land of defendants had penetrated plaintiffs' land and had filled up sewer and drain pipes there, causing damages, an also had had grown under the cement cellar of the plaintiffs' house, causing damages. They sought a mandatory injunction compelling the removal of the roots, a permanent injunction restraining defendants from allowing the roots to encroach on plaintiffs' land, and damages.
TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS
The trial judge ruled that upon the facts admitted and found to be true there was no liability on the part of defendants for the clogging of the sewer and the moving of the wall by the roots of the tree, the trunk of which stood on defendants' land, and he ordered a decree dismissing the bill with costs. Plaintiffs appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The court found no error and affirmed the decree.
- The court saw no distinction in principle between damage done by shade and damage caused by overhanging branches or invading roots.
- The neighbor's right to cut off intruding boughs and roots was well recognized.
- His remedy was in his own hands. In the commonwealth, there was no actionable nuisance and no right of recourse to equity.
CONCLUSION
The court found no error and affirmed the decree that dismissed plaintiffs' bill in equity with costs. There was no liability on the part of defendants for the clogging of the sewer and the moving of the wall by the roots of the tree, the trunk of which stood on defendants' land.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment