Many law businesses and trades have been found to be nuisances under certain conditions, as follows: a blacksmith shop,119 a blacksmith shop operating at night,120 a boiler factory adjoining a dwelling,121 a brewery adjoining complainant's premises,122 church bells,123 a circular saw,124 a circus holding performances near a dwelling125, a confectioner using a mortar and pestle in premises adjoining dwelling,126 an electric plant in close proximity to a dwelling,127 and engine house and machine shop adjoining a church,128 a factory operating drop hammers in residence neighborhood129 a factory bell rung to arouse operatives,130 a factory whistle,131 a factory whistle making a loud and harsh sound and blown at unreasonable hours,132 flour mills in close proximity to a dwelling,133 gas works on premises adjacent to a dwelling,134 glass works adjoining a hotel,135 gold and silver beating in a quiet residence neighborhood,136 hucksters in a market place,137 an iron foundry,138 an iron foundry eighty-five yards from a dwelling,139 an iron mongery near a dwelling,140 a machine shop in a residence neighborhood,141 steam machinery operated on premises adjoining a dwelling,142 machinery in a building wherein a person resides,143 a mill in a densely populated portion of a city,144 a planing mill in a residence section within ninety feet of a dwelling,145 a pottery forty feet from a dwelling,146 a railroad in the neighborhood of a church,147 a railroad roundhouse for the storage of locomotives near a dwelling,148 a railroad shifting cars in a city,149 a railroad siding used for shifting cars,150 a railroad switch near a dwelling,151 a railroad turntable in the vicinity of a dwelling,152 a railroad water hydrant thirty-five feet from a church,153 a rolling mill with steam hammers near dwellings,154 a sawmill on a lot adjoining a dwelling in a neighborhood occupied by manufacturing establishments,155 a sawmill on a lot adjoining a dwelling,156 a school of instruction in metal working in a residence neighborhood,157 a slaughter house where noisy animals are confined,158 a stable for horses adjoining a dwelling,159 a steam hammer in a residence neighborhood,160 a street railway cross-switch in front of a dwelling,161 a tinshop eight feet from complainant's sleeping rooms where work is carried on early in the morning and late at night.162 The following forms of business have been held not to constitute nuisances under the circumstances designated: a blacksmith shop,163 a blacksmith shop in a small village,164 a blacksmith shop near the business portion of a country village,165 a blacksmith shop twenty-eight feet from complainant's residence in a country town,166 blasting for the foundation of a house, carefully done,167 a boiler factory adjoining a residence in a neighborhood given over to like industries,168 a brick and tile plant near a dwelling,169 a coal chute,170 a coal chute ninety-three feet from a dwelling,171 coal elevators in a business neighborhood,172 a cotton gin eighty-eight feet from a residence,173 a cotton press on a city lot contiguous to a dwelling,174 driving on way paved to lessen noise,175 an electric light plant in the manufacturing part of a city,176 a fire engine house,177 a flouring mill in a business locality adjoining a dwelling,178 a furniture factory,179 musical instruction on piano and violin in premises adjoining a dwelling,180 a paper mill operated day and night within five hundred feet of a dwelling,181 a printing establishment adjoining a dwelling,182 running machinery for temporary use on land adjoining a dwelling,183 a railroad in a city street,184 a railroad in close proximity to a dwelling,185 a railroad near a church,186 a railroad shifting cars sixty feet from a dwelling,187 a railroad within one hundred and fifty feet of a dwelling,188 a restaurant in an adjoining fit,189 a silk mill close to a dwelling,190 stock yards across the street from a dwelling,191 stock yards where noisy animals are kept in a residence district,192 stone cutting on premises adjoining an apartment house,193 a street car barn in a residence district.194 195

107 Harrison vs. People., 101 111.

App., 234. 108 Windfall Mfg. Co. vs. Patterson, 148 Ind., 414. 109 Owen vs. Phillips, 73 Ind., 284.

110 Regan vs. Allen, 46 111. App., 553.

111 Rogers vs. John Week Lumber Co., 117 Wis., 5. 112 Louisville, etc. Terminal Co. vs. Jackobs, 109 Tenn., 727.

113 Lexington, etc. R. C. vs. Applegate, 8 Dana ( Ky.), 289. 114 Parker vs. Union Woolen Co , 42

Conn., 399. 115 Butterfield vs. Klaber (N. Y.

Super a.), 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.), 255.

116 Windfall Mfg. Co. vs. Patterson,

148 Ind., 414. 117 Kinney vs. Koopmen, 116 Ala.,

310. 118 Ray vs. Lynes, 10 Ala., 63.

119 Whitney vs. Bartholomew, 21

Conn., 213.

120 Peacock vs. Spitxelberger (Ky.,

1895), 29 S. W. Rep., 877.

121 Fish vs. Dodge, 4 Den. (N. Y.)f

311.

122 Dittman vs. Repp., 50 Md., 516.

123 Soultau vs. De Held, 2 Sim. N.

S 133 124 Gort vs. Clark, 18 L. T. N. S., 343

125 Inchbald vs. Robinson, L. R.,

4 Ch., 388. 126 Sturges vs. Bridgman, 11 Ch. D., 852

127 Hughes vs. General Electric Light, etc. Co., 107 Ky., 485.

128 Baltimore, etc. R. Co., vs. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317. 129 Show vs. Queen City Forging Co.,

10 Ohio Dec, 107. 130 Davis vs. Sawyer, 133 Mass., 289. 131 Knight vs. Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co., 38

Conn., 438.

132 Hill vs. McBurney Oil, etc. Co.,

112 Ga. 788. 133 Owen vs. Phillips, 73 Ind., 284.

134 Rosenheimer vs. Standard Gas Light Co., 36 N. Y. App., Div.l.

135 Leeds vs. Boheimian Art Glass Works, 63 N. J. Eq., 619. 136 Wallace vs. Auer, 10 Phila. (Pa.), 356.

137 McDonald vs. Newark, 42 N. J.

Eq., 136.

138 Wesson vs. Washburn Iron Co.,

13 Allen (Mass), 95.

139 Crump vs. Lambert, L. R.,3 Eq., 409.

140 Elliotson vs. Feetham, 2 Bing.,

N. Cas., 134, 29 E. C. L., 283. 141 McMorran vs. Fitzgerald, 106

Mich., 649. 142 McKeon vs. See, 4 Robt. (N.Y.),

449. 143 Pach vs. Geoffroy, 67 Hun. (N.

Y.), 401.

144 Davidson vs. Isham, 9 N. J. Eq.,

186. 145 Rogers vs. John Weel Lumber

Co., 117 Wis., 6.

146 Ross vs. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq.,294. 147 Schenectady First Baptist

Church vs. Schenectady, etc. Ro. Co., 5 Barb. (N. Y.), 79. 148 Louisville, etc. Terminal Co. vs. Jackobs, 109 Tenn., 727.

149 Pennsylvania R. Co. vs. Thompson, 45 N. J. Eq.,870.

150 Pennsylvania R. Co. vs. Angel, 41 N. J. Eq., 316.

151 Stockdale vs. Rio Grande Western R. Co., 28 Utah, 201.

152 Garvey vs. Long Island R. Co., 159 N. Y., 323.

I53 Chicago G. W. R. Co. vs. Leavenworth First M. E. Church (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. Rep., 85.

154 Scott vs. Firth, 4 F. & F., 349.

155 Hurlbut vs. McKone, 55 Conn.,

31. 156 Duncan vs. Hayes, 22 N. J. Eq.,

25. 157 Ladies Decorative Art Club's

Appeal (Pa. 1888).

15 8 Bishop vs. Banks, 33 Conn., 118.

159 Broder vs. Saillard, 2 Ch. D, 692. 160 Robinson vs. Baugh, 31 Mich.,

290. 161 State vs. Hartford St. R. Co., 76

Conn., 174. 162 Dennis vs. Eckhardt 3 Grant

Gas. (Pa.), 390. 163 Faucher vs. Grass, 60 Iowa, 505. 164 Rays vs. Lynes, 10 Ala., 63. 165 Culver vs. Ragen, 8 Ohio Gir.

Dec, 125. 166 Bowen vs. Mauzy, 117 Ind.,258.

167 Lord vs. De Witt, 116 Fed. Rep.,

713.

168 Hafer vs. Guyman, 7 Pa. Dist.,

21.

169 Windfall Mfg. Co. vs. Patterson,

148 Ind., 414.

170 Dalton vs. Cleveland, Etc. R,

Co., 144 Ind., 121.

171 Dunsmore vs. Central Iowa R.

Co., 72 Iowa, 182. 172 Robins vs. Dominion Coal Co.,

16 Quebec Super Ct., 195. 173 Rouse vs. Martin, 75 Ala., 510. 174 Ryan vs. Copes, 11 Rich. L. (S.

ft.), 217.

Mere noise may constitute a nuisance. Almost any kind of a noise may become a nuisance under certain circumstances. Thus the noise made by animals in a stable,196 music,197 and church bells,198 or even the human voice,199 have been held to create nuisances.

175 Leonard vs. Hotel Majestic Co.

(Sup. Ct., Spec. T.), 17 Misc.

(N. Y.), 229. 176 McCann vs. Strang, 97 Wis., 551.

177 Van de Vere vs. Kansas City,

107 Mo., 83.

178 Gilbert vs. Showerman, 23 Mich.,

448.

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

180 Christie vs. Day (1893), 1 Ch.,

316.

181 Shepard vs. Hill, 151 Mass., 540. l82 McCaffrey's Appeal, 105 Pa. St.,

253.

183 Harrison vs. Southwark, etc. Water Co. (1891), 2 Ch., 409.

184 Lexington, etc. R. Co. vs. Apple-gate, 8 Dana ( Ky.), 289.

185 Carroll vs. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 40 Minn., 168.

186 Schenectady First Baptist Church vs. Utica, etc. R. Co., 6 Barb. (N. Y.), 313.

187 Beideman vs. Atlantic City R.

Co. (N. J., 1890), 19 Atl. Rep., 731.

188 Friedman vs. New York, etc. R.

Co., 89 N. Y. App. Div., 38.

189 Souders-Clarke vs. Grosvenor

Mansions Co., (1900) 2 ch. 373.

190 Gaunt vs. Fynney, L. R. Sch. 8.

191 Dolan vs. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,

118 Wis. 362. 192 Ballentine vs. Webb, 84 Mich.,

38 193 Butterfield vs. Klaber (N. Y.

Super ch.) 52 How Pr. (N. Y.),

255. 194 Romer vs. St. Paul City R. Co.,

75 Minn., 211. 195 The discussion of the question as to whether a lawful business may constitute a nuisance is taken from note, pp. 378-9,

American & English Annotated

Cases, Vol. 4.

The collection of dangerous, 200 or filthy, or offensive201 substances on one's land may constitute a nuisance as against the neighboring land owners.

In England the setting of spring guns,202 or traps for animals,203 might constitute nuisances; but this rule has never prevailed to any great extent in the United States,204 A barbed wire fence may be a nuisance if negligently constructed.205

196 Filson vs. Grawford, 5 N. Y.

Supp., 882; Harvey vs. Consumer's Ice Co., 104 Term., 583; Gifford vs. Hulett, 62 Vt., 342.

197 Davis vs. Davis, 40 W. Va., 464.

198 Leete vs. Pilgrim Cong. Soc, 14 Mo. App., 590.

199 Rex vs. Smith. 1 Stra., 704.

200 Fletcher vs. Rylands, L. R., 1 Exch., 265; Knapheide vs.

Eastman, 20 Minn., 478. 201 Brown vs. Illius, 27 Conn., 84. 202Ilott vs. Wiles, 3 B. & Ald., 304;

5 E. C. L., 295. 203 Jordin vs. Crump, 8 M. & W.,

782. 204 Johnson vs. Patterson, 14 Conn.,

1. 205 Winkler vs. Carolien, etc. R. Co.,

126 N. C.; 78 Am. St. Rep., 663.