Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s use of her property constitutes a nuisance. Defendant argued that her use was prior to the Plaintiffs moving to the area, and as a result, an injunction should not be granted.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Carrying on an offensive trade for any number of years in a place remote from buildings and public roads, does not entitle the owner to continue it in the same place after houses have been built. The fact that Plaintiffs ‘came to the nuisance’ is not a defense.
Issue. Should Plaintiffs be denied equitable relief because Defendant’s use of her property was prior to Plaintiffs’ use of their property?
Held. No. Judgment affirmed.
* Carrying on an offensive trade for any number of years in a place remote from buildings and public roads, does not entitle the owner to continue it in the same place after houses have been built. As the city extends, such nuisances should be removed to the vacant grounds beyond the immediate neighborhood of the citizens’ residences. In this case, Defendant’s use was not a nuisance to the surrounding property owners twenty years ago, but now that the city has expanded, Defendant’s land is encompassed by a residential neighborhood. Plaintiffs are entitled to the use and enjoyment of their land. Defendant must move if she wishes to continue her use.
Discussion. The city is continuing to expand and Plaintiffs are entitled to enjoy their land. If the court were to permit Defendant to continue her use, the numerous residential properties surrounding Defendant’s premises would be impaired. It only makes sense to require Defendant to stop her use of the property, or move. Coming to the nuisance is not a defense.