Pl - Del
Df - Spur
owned cattle feedlots prior to the construction of plaintiff's
nearby residential development.
sued defendant, claiming that the feedlots were a public
nuisance because of the flies and odor that drifted toward the
Judgment permanently enjoining [prohibiting] the Df - Spur, from
operating a cattle feedlot near the Pl - Webb.
1911 - Spur
family started farming started.
Youngtown Retirement Community Started.
began Sun City Development. He bought 20,000 for $750 per acre
started golf course.
purchased land in question, for rebuilding and expanding.
started offering homes 10.5 miles north of Spur.
continued to develop south toward the feedlot getting within 500
1300 lots in the southwest portion were unfit for development,
because of Spurs feedlot.
because of the flies and the odor which were drifting or being
blown by the prevailing south to north wind over the southern
portion of Sun City.
feeding between 20K and 30K head of cattle.
pounds of manure/day
(Shut Down Feed Lot)
had become a nuisance to the people who resided in the south
part of Webbs development.
citizens of Sun city were unable to enjoy the outdoor living
which Webb had adversities.
shutdown operation and appealed.
May Spur Be enjoined?
nuisance is one affecting a single individual or a definite
small number of persons in the enjoyment of private rights not
common to the public.
nuisance is one affecting the rights enjoyed by citizens as a
part of the public.
constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a
considerable number of people or an entire community or
injury is slight, the
remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for
than in one for an injunction.
Nuisance Statute 36-601
following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances
dangerous to the public health:
condition or place in populous areas
which constitutes a breeding place for
flies, rodents, mosquitoes and other insects which
are capable of carrying and transmitting disease-causing
organisms to any person or persons.
business a public nuisance
be a "populous" area in which people are injured.
and surroundings are of the first importance.
which is not per se a public nuisance may become such by being
carried on at a place where the health, comfort, or convenience
of a populous neighborhood is affected.
Holding May Spur be enjoined?
residents of Youngtown would be entitled to damages rather than
operation was an enjoinable public
nuisance for the southern portion of Webbs Sun City.
It is clear
that Spurs feedlot was both a
public and private nuisance to the citizens of Sun
Must Webb Indemnify Spur?
equity may both give and withhold relief in furtherance of the
public interest when only private interests are involved.
or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon
considerations of public interest
equity are concerned with protecting the operator of a
lawfully, albeit noxious, business from the
result of a knowing and willful
encroachment by others near his business.
the Nuisance Cases
have held that the residential landowner may not have relief if
he knowingly came into a neighborhood reserved for industrial or
agricultural endeavors and has been damaged thereby.
In such an
area plaintiffs cannot complain that legitimate agricultural
pursuits are being carried on in the vicinity, nor can
plaintiffs, having chosen to build in an agricultural area,
complain that the agricultural pursuits carried on in the area
depreciate the value of their homes.
Live In The Suburbs
Utilities and 3. Get Away from Congestion.
cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for
his residence which was not so when he selected it.
no rigid rules for
the law of nuisance. It is elastic.
required to move not because he did anything wrong, but because
of a proper and legitimate regard of the courts for the rights
and interests of the public.
It does not
seem harsh to require a developer, who has taken advantage of
the lesser land values in a rural area as well as the
availability of large tracts of land on which to build and
develop a new town or city in the area, to
indemnify those who are forced
to leave as a result.
indemnify Spur for a reasonable amount of the
cost of moving or shutting down.
to the trial court for a hearing upon the damages sustained by
the defendant Spur as a reasonable and direct result of the
granting of the permanent injunction.
in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.