There are many acts which without injuring any of the tangible objects which make up the reality, yet seriously affect its enjoyment by its owner. Prominent among such nuisances is the corruption of the air by offensive odors or vapors.74 Among the acts which may occasion nuisances of this character are the following: Erecting dams which create stagnant pools and deposits of filth;75 depositing garbage or filth on the surface of the ground within the limits of a city;76 placing dead bodies in a private tomb near another's dwelling,77 or putting dead animals near another's dwelling;78 or throwing or diverting slops or filth on another's premises.79

Any lawful trade or business may be a nuisance,80 if it be so conducted as to render uncomfortable the enjoyment by the neighbors of life and property.81 Because a business may be lawful, there is no exemption if its exercise works harm to others.82 The question whether under certain conditions a nuisance is shown to exist will depend on the character of the neighborhood,83 and surrounding circumstances,84 as due regard must be had to fitness of locality.85 What constitutes a nuisance in one locality may not in another.86 Certain occupations, trades, or manufactures may become a nuisance in a populous city, which would not be so in the country or among a scattered population.87 Although adjacent proprietors are obliged to suffer the reasonable inconvenience of neighborhood,88 offensive trades, however necessary they may be, must be carried on in such places as not to affect the health and comfort of others,89 the question being what under the circumstances is reasonable.90 ' 'A man has no right to bring a noisy trade or business into a neighborhood exclusively occupied by dwelling houses, and to create these noises which destroy the peace and comfort of the occupants of those houses."91 ' 'An individual cannot erect in a densely settled portion of a city or town, occupied by private dwellings, any kind of manufacturing establishment, and so use the machinery and carry on the business as to render living in the neighborhood uncomfortable, either on account of the noise it occasions, or of its smoke and offensive smells.,,92 So one who erects a manufactory in a neighborhood used for dwellings should pay due regard to the maxim, "sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,"93 which will be enforced by the courts.94 A "convenient place" for the erection of a manufacturing establishment is one where no actionable injury will be occasioned to others.95 But "some parts of a town, may by lapse of time, or prescription, by the continuance of a number of factories long enough to have a right as against every one, be so dedicated to smells, smoke, noise, and dust that an additional factory, which adds a little to the common evil, would not be considered at law a nuisance, or be restrained in equity."96

74 Seacord vs. People, 121 111., 623; Beckley vs. Skroh, 19 Mo. App., 75; Galbrouth vs. Ohner, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.), 79.

75 Nerums vs. Peoria, 41 111., 502.

76 Rochester vs. Collins, 12 Barb.

(N. Y.), 559.

77 Barnes vs. Hathorn, 54 Me., 124.

78 Ellis vs. Kansas City, etc. R.

Co., 63 Mo., 131.

79 Beckley vs. Shroh, 19 Mo. App., 75.

80 McCann vs. Strang, 97 Wis., 551.

81 Ross vs. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq.,294. 82 Dennis vs. Eckhardt, 3 Grant Cas. (Pa.), 390.

83 Finegan vs. Allen, 46 111. App., 553.

84 Sturges vs. Bridgman, 11 Ch. D., 852. 85 Gilbert vs. Showerman, 23 Mich., 448. 86 Hurlburt vs. McKone, 55 Conn., 31.

87 McKeon vs. See, 4 Robt. (N.Y.), 449.

88 Robins vs. Dominion Coal Co., 16 Quebec Super Ct., 195.

89 Ray vs. Lynes, 10 Ala., 63.

90 Shepard vs. Hill, 151 Mass., 540. 91 Ladies Decorative Art Club's Appeal (Pa., 1888).

92 Davidson vs. Ishan, 9 N. J. Eq., 190.

93 Bishop vs. Banks, 33 Conn., 119.

94 Robinson vs. Baugh, 31 Mich., 290

95 Powell vs. Bentley, etc., Furniture Co., 34 W. Va., 804.

That is a nuisance which annoys and disturbs one in the possession of his property, rendering its ordinary use or occupation physically uncomfortable.97 But there must be a material interference,98 such as is physically annoying to one of ordinary sensibilities."99 'The real test, it is said, whether a noisy trade is a nuisance in a particular locality and to a particular person in the enjoyment of his property, is whether it is of such a character as would be likely to be physically annoying to a person of ordinary sensibilities, or whether it is carried on at such unreasonable hours as to disturb the repose of people dwelling within its sphere."100 The law will not regard trifling inconveniences.101 "No general rule can be laid down sufficiently specific and certain to apply to all cases; but, as often said, each case must be decided upon its own particular state of facts, and the whole question must be largely one as to degree, being determined in the light of human experiences."102 Reasonable use is to be determined in view of the rights of others,103 and if what is done is unreasonable, the fact that a similar unreasonable usage prevails elsewhere will be no excuse.104 Regard must be had to the quality as well as the quantity of the noise.105

Certain instrumentalities have been said to be not per se nuisances, such as a blacksmith shop,106 a bowling alley,107 a brick kiln,108 a flour mill109 and iron foundry,110 a railway roundhouse,111 a steam railroad,112 a steam engine113, a steam whistle,114 and stone cutting.115 But as a nuisance per se cannot be lawfully maintained,116 it follows that no lawful occupation can be per se a nuisance.117 It seems that an injunction will not be granted to restrain the erection of a business unless it be necessarily a nuisance.118

96 Ross vs. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq., 306.

97 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. vs. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S., 317.

98 Crump vs. Lambert, L. R., 3 Ea., 409.

99 Davis vs. Sawyer, 133 Mass., 289.

100 McCann vs. Strang, 97 Wis., 553.

101 DoeUner vs. Tynan, 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.), 176. 102 Rouse vs. Martin, 75 Ala., 510 103 Hurlbut vs. McKone, 55 Conn., 31.

104 Shepard vs. Hill, 151 Mass., 540.

105 Shaw vs. Queen City Forging Co., 10 Ohio Dec, 107.

106 Faucher vs. Grass, 60 Iowa, 505.