Pee Curiam.
¶1
We have carefully examined the proofs and are satisfied that they fully support the result reached below.
¶2
Decree is affirmed, with costs.
¶3
For affirmance
— -The Chief-Justice, Trewchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Hbher, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 14.
¶4
For modification
— Dokges, J. 1.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stein, who filed the following opinion:
Complainants since November, 1924, own and occupy a two-family residence at 765 South Sixteenth street, Newark, New Jersey, adjoining the premises of the defendant laundry company.
The defendant laundry company commenced business at its present location in the early part of March, 1924. The laundry building was originally separated from complainants' residence by a vacant lot approximately seventy-five feet in width. After defendant's business increased the laundry building was increased in size until it is now separated from complainants' residence by a narrow passageway only.
With the growth of the defendant's business, additional machinery was installed, resulting in increased noise, vibration and also soot and smoke emanating from the laundry smoke stack, and complainants now claim that their property right existing in the use and enjoyment of their home has been destroyed and the value of their property much affected, and their suit is for an injunction.
The testimony of the witnesses produced on the hearing was conflicting, as is usual in such cases, and resulted in a personal inspection of the premises by me during the course of the hearing. One fact admitted by the experts of the defendant and which is more or less outstanding is that if the stoker in the plant is properly operated no smoke or soot would emanate from the smoke stack. The evidence of the complainants and their witnesses (neighbors) is to the effect that the smoke coming from the stack of the defendant's laundry permeates the rooms of their dwellings, soils their laundry when it is washed and hung in the yard to dry, and that the vibration and noise caused by the machinery in the plant of the defendant prevents them from sleeping at night. And
in this connection it is admitted by the defendant that the plant is operated at night and until the early morning hours on each Monday and sometimes late at night on other days.
The defendant's business was established in its present location shortly before complainants entered the neighborhood so that the right of complainants to object is somewhat limited. The defendant's business, however, has been enlarged since that time and it is this enlargement of the plant, together with increased machinery and the closeness now to complainants' residence which is the gravamen of their complaint. The business of the defendant is lawful but must be conducted with due regard to the rights of adjoining property owners, one of which is the right to rest and sleep during the night. The homes in the neighborhood affected are of the one and two-family type, and there is a church located opposite the defendant's plant.
The evidence adduced before me together with my personal observation satisfies me that the smoke and soot complained of emanates from the defendant's place of business. Small particles of what seemed to me to be coal were visible in the vicinity of the plant and the paint on the dwellings showed evidences of damage done by the soot. The noise of machinery when the plant is in operation (even when most of the windows of the plant are closed as was the case on the day of my inspection) is such that I am convinced that complainants are disturbed in their needed rest at night. `Mankind needs sleep for a succession of several hours once in every twenty-four hours, and nature has provided a time for that purpose, to wit, the nighttime, * * * and noises which would not be adjudged nuisances, under the circumstances, if made in the daytime, will be declared to be nuisances, if made at night * * *.' Gilbough v. West Side Amusement Co., 64 N.J. Eq. 27 .
Admittedly the smoke and soot emanating from defendant's plant can be eliminated if the defendant will properly operate the stoker, and it is the defendant's duty to so operate its plant as not to commit a nuisance. Neither may the defendant operate its machinery at night during sleeping
hours, if to do so will prevent complainants from enjoying needed rest. Friedman v. Keil, 113 N.J. Eq. 37 .
The defendant will be enjoined from operating its laundry during the hours of seven o'clock in the evening and six-thirty o'clock in the morning and from emitting soot and smoke from the smoke stack of its laundry.
Decree in accordance with the foregoing conclusions. Source: CourtListener
