Lamoine v. J. J. Doyle Co.

155 N.E.2d 782, 338 Mass. 793
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 29, 1959
StatusPublished

This text of 155 N.E.2d 782 (Lamoine v. J. J. Doyle Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lamoine v. J. J. Doyle Co., 155 N.E.2d 782, 338 Mass. 793 (Mass. 1959).

Opinion

Interlocutory decree affirmed. Final decree affirmed with costs of the appeal to the plaintiffs. These are appeals from an interlocutory decree confirming the master’s report and from a final decree granting an injunction against the continuance of a nuisance and awarding damages. The plaintiffs are the owners and occupants of realty on Main Street, Holden; the defendants are the owner and the operator of an asphalt plant on adjacent property. The plant manufactures a paving compound known as “black top or “hot top.” In its operation, quantities of stone dust, a necessary ingredient of the compound, are emitted, borne by the prevailing winds, and deposited upon the plaintiffs’ premises, covering their grounds, penetrating the interior of their residences and coating their furnishings with the dust. The plaintiffs’ property had been used in part for residences for many years prior to the establishment of the asphalt plant. The record shows an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property and the final decree was correct in finding that the defendants’ conduct constituted a nuisance. Boston Ferrule Co. v. Hills, 159 Mass. 147. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co. 216 Mass. 436. Stevens v. Dedham, 238 Mass. 487. Hakkila v. Old Colony Broken Stone & Concrete Co. 264 Mass. 447. Shea v. National Ice Cream Co. Inc. 280 Mass. 206. De Blois v. Bowers, 44 F. 2d 621. The final decree, which awarded damages up to May 1, 1957, the date of the commencement of hearings before the master upon recommittal, was proper in the absence of any demand by the plaintiffs for damages for a subsequent or further period. Collins v. Snow, 218 Mass. 542, 545. Hakkila v. Old Colony Broken Stone & Concrete Co. 264 Mass. 447, 450, 453.

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

Related

De Blois v. Bowers
44 F.2d 621 (D. Massachusetts, 1930)
Boston Ferrule Co. v. Hills
20 L.R.A. 844 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Bulkeley v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
103 N.E. 1033 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Collins v. Snow
106 N.E. 148 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Stevens v. Inhabitants of Dedham
131 N.E. 171 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Hakkila v. Old Colony Broken Stone & Concrete Co.
162 N.E. 895 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Shea v. National Ice Cream Co.
182 N.E. 303 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 N.E.2d 782, 338 Mass. 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamoine-v-j-j-doyle-co-mass-1959.