Kocska v. Gering Bros.

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Kocska v. Gering Bros.

20 A.2d 442, 129 N.J. Eq. 548, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 670

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedMay 20, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.2d 442 (Kocska v. Gering Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kocska v. Gering Bros., 20 A.2d 442, 129 N.J. Eq. 548, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 670 (N.J. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from a decree in Chancery, advised by Vice-Chancellor Stein, dismissing the bill of complaint, which sought to restrain the defendants from operating a cellulose plant and storing the manufactured products on the premises.

The complainants, at the hearing in the Court of Chancery, sought to establish the existence of a nuisance on the grounds *549 that the plant operation resulted in smoke, fumes, loud noises, as well as disagreeable odors from waste materials. These grounds are abandoned on this appeal and it is now argued that the storage of cellulose on the premises, which materials they claim to be of an inflammable nature, caused the complainants to live in fear of their safety. The learned Vice-Chancellor found to the contrary on this issue and held that “increased danger of fire [which may be conceded here] was not sufficient reason to restrain that which causes the increase of danger.” This, we think, has been the law of this state for a long time. Wolcott v. Melick, 11 N. J. Eq. 204. The plant of the respondents, as the Vice-Chancellor pointed out, is located in a country, not an urban, site and our review of the evidence in the case leads us to the conclusion that the decree dismissing the bill of complaint was justified under the facts proved.

The decree will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ghief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hbher, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolfsKbil, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from a decree in Chancery, advised by Vice-Chancellor Stein, dismissing the bill of complaint, which sought to restrain the defendants from operating a cellulose plant and storing the manufactured products on the premises.

The complainants, at the hearing in the Court of Chancery, sought to establish the existence of a nuisance on the grounds *549 that the plant operation resulted in smoke, fumes, loud noises, as well as disagreeable odors from waste materials. These grounds are abandoned on this appeal and it is now argued that the storage of cellulose on the premises, which materials they claim to be of an inflammable nature, caused the complainants to live in fear of their safety. The learned Vice-Chancellor found to the contrary on this issue and held that “increased danger of fire [which may be conceded here] was not sufficient reason to restrain that which causes the increase of danger.” This, we think, has been the law of this state for a long time. Wolcott v. Melick, 11 N. J. Eq. 204. The plant of the respondents, as the Vice-Chancellor pointed out, is located in a country, not an urban, site and our review of the evidence in the case leads us to the conclusion that the decree dismissing the bill of complaint was justified under the facts proved.

The decree will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ghief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hbher, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolfsKbil, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.2d 442, 129 N.J. Eq. 548, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kocska-v-gering-bros-njsuperctappdiv-1941.