Story Case

Mr. Houseman was an ingenious soap maker, and supplied a very exclusive patronage in the fashionable sections of New York with a particularly excellent brand of soap. His factory, however, gave much less satisfaction than the soap, and the odor of the factory was unfortunately less pleasant than that of its finished product. Finally, the neighbors living to the leeward of the factory delegated Mr. Williams, one of their number, to ask the court to stop the manufactare of soap in the neighborhood. Mr. Williams asked the court to abolish the nuisance, and showed that the stench during the summer months often became intolerable, and even made the childen ill. Mr. Houseman insisted that he had built his factory on this site when there were no neighbors within two miles, and that those who came later should be compelled to accept conditions as they found them. Will Mr. Houseman be asked to move his factory?

Ruling Court Case. Bridgham Vs. Vaughan, Volume 193 Massachusetts Reports, Page 392

The parties to this suit were owners or lessees of buildings on Washington Street, in Boston. Between the two buildings was a narrow passageway. Vaughan had installed a ventilating system in his building. In the rear was a large electric exhaust fan which opened on the passageway. In operation, it sent the unwholesome air from his building across the passageway and into the open windows of the building occupied by Bridgham. This was a bill by Bridgham to have the operation of this fan enjoined.

He claimed that he was entitled to fresh air, free from pollution, and his right was infringed upon by the ventilating system of Vaughan.

Mr. Justice Loring quoted from the opinion of the lower court, with approval: "It is true that the defendants have no right to so maintain and operate the fan as to send such a stream of air across the passageway into the premises occupied by the plaintiffs and their tenants, and to do so constitutes an interference with and an invasion of the right of the plaintiff and their tenants in the enjoyment of their property, for which they are entitled to relief. I rule that the defendants have a right to maintain windows and doors and other openings into and upon passageways, for light and air, and to ventilate into the same by any proper means, if they do not thereby create a nuisance so as to interfere with the enjoyment by the plaintiffs and their tenants of the premises occupied by and belonging to them." Judgment was given for Bridgham.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Air is regarded as a natural right; every person is entitled to have air free from unreasonable noises and unwholesome odors. When the pollution of the air becomes excessive, and the noises become unreasonable, such a state of things constitutes a nuisance, and the owner of the land affected may either sue for damages or have the pollution enjoined.

The pollution of air resulting from the manufacture of soap is notoriously repellant and intolerable. Such an establishment in a residential section of a city will be enjoined from further operation even though, as in the Story Case, the factory is established before such section is populated. In determining whether or not an annoyance is a nuisance to property rights, the court investigates all the circumstances of the case and tries to learn what action will result in the greatest good to the greatest number. The court will then order according to the mode that will result in the greatest good.