Mitchell v. Flynn Dairy Co.

172 Iowa 582
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedMarch 13, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 172 Iowa 582 (Mitchell v. Flynn Dairy Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mitchell v. Flynn Dairy Co., 172 Iowa 582 (iowa 1915).

Opinions

Evans, J.

Since 1909, the defendant has been engaged .in a branch of the dairy business. Its plant is located on Seventh Street and University Avenue, being On the south side of University Avenue and on the west side of Seventh Street. Its business at that plant consisted in collecting and distributing dairy products in the form of milk and cream •and in the manufacture and sale of iee-ereain in large quantities. The plaintiffs are owners of residences in the near vicinity of this plant. The operation of this plant involved the labor of many teams for the purpose of hauling milk and cream to and from the plant. The activities of the plant were [584]*584in operation in some form practically every hour of the night and day. The following plat will indicate the location of the plant and the residences of the plaintiffs:!

The west end of the plant is upon the alley line. The buildings extend from University Avenue to the south line and cover about two thirds of the two lots owned by the defendant. The uncovered portion is that part that lies next to Seventh Street. Across the alley to the west is the residence of Jaderstrom. The east line of his house is about 4 feet from the alley line. The width of the alley is 14 feet. This residence has one east door and five east windows. The necessary hauling for the defendant has involved the' coming and going of about 130 teams per day. Most of these pass through the alley in question. They stop at one point for [585]*585the purpose of unloading. This point is close to Jaderstrom’s door. The teams then pass to the south, then turn to the left into the building and north along an inside driveway and out into University Avenue. They also drive the same route in a reverse direction. Sometimes, when there is congestion at the south end of the alley, the teams back out. On the east side of the buildings, there is also a short driveway without outlet. The teams drive thereon to an unloading window and platform and then back out again. The home of plaintiff Mitchell is located north of University Avenue', facing Seventh Street. His house is located on his north lot, which is 50 feet distant from University Avenue. The locality is a residence 'locality, but there is no residence facing north on University Avenue between Sixth and Ninth Streets, except that of Jaderstrom. On the north side of University Avenue, however, are many residences,- and Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Streets are thickly occupied in that general vicinity.

The allegations of the' petition which set forth the alleged nuisance character of the defendant’s plant are very extensive. Nothing appears to have been omitted. The finding of the trial court for the plaintiffs was general in form and quite as broad as the allegations of the petition. The charge of nuisance is. based mainly upon the following specifications: smoke from the chimney; foul odors of sour milk and the offal of horses; and noises. The noises complained of consist (1) of the' profanity and obscenity of the teamsters; (2) of the steam exhaust; (3) of the ieeerusher; (4) of the rattle of milk cans and bottles upon metal platforms and upon the cement walk; (5) of the rattle of wagons over the pavement. It is alleged, also, that the annoyance of such noises was emphasized by the fact that they occurred at unreasonable hours of the night. As to these alleged nuisance features, there is considerable conflict in the testimony. Before proceeding to a consideration of these, we must set forth the material undisputed facts. These .are well epitomized in the brief of the appellant, as follows:

[586]*586“The testimony shows, without dispute, that the plaintiffs, W. F. Mitchell and Louis W. Jaderstrom, were the owners of the real property described in the petition, the plaintiff Mitchell having resided upon his property for thirty years and the plaintiff Jaderstrom having bought his property a year and a half before he testified as a witness in the case, and paid $3,000 therefor, and with full knowledge of the conditions existing and surrounding the property he purchased for thrée years. The Flynn Dairy Company was the owner of the property described in the petition and occupied its property as a dairy and was engaged in the business of receiving sweet milk, sterilizing the same, and manufacturing, and delivering sweet milk and cream in sealed bottles to the retail trade in the city of Des Moines, Iowa. That it also made and delivered ice cream, sherbet, buttermilk and butter to the wholesale and retail trade of the city of Des Moines, Iowa; that the source of the supply of its milk was from the farmers in 'the immediate vicinity of Des Moines, some of it being delivered at Des Moines by railways and some of it by farmers’ teams. That it had invested $100,000 in its plant, which was located about the center of the city of Des Moines, and was engaged in serving about 3,000 families daily with milk and cream products. That it also supplied hotels, restaurants, cafes, boarding houses and drug stores with milk products, and its gross sales at the time of this trial ran about $20,000 per month. The company had located its plant geographically in the center of the population so as to shorten the delivery system and to deliver its products quicker to the people; that there was a general custom in this city, and in other cities, with respect to the time of making deliveries, dependent upon the season of the year; that in the summer months, during the hot weather, it was the practice to deliver milk so the patrons would receive it before breakfast, and when thé weather got cooler, so it was not necessary that its patrons keep ice, deliveries were made in the forenoon; that it was necessary to keep milk at a temperature below 50 [587]*587degrees, and many families in the summer time did not buy sufficient ice, or didn’t have ice, to maintain this temperature to keep the milk sweet, and for these reasons, during the hot months, the milk had to be delivered to the people before breakfast, and that about 9 out of 10 families used the milk and cream that was delivered before breakfast; that it had been the custom and practice of the Flynn Dairy, in respect to the time of making its deliveries, beginning about the first of May each year and terminating about the first of October, to deliver milk before breakfast, and, from the first of October to the first of May, to deliver its milk in daylight and before noon. The delivery wagons, from about the first of May to October 1st, began to leave defendant’s plant at 1:30 A. M. and, at intervals of 10 minutes, 14 wagons left the plant; that from the first of October to the first of May, the wagons began to leave the plant between 4 and 5 o’clock in the morning and from then on to 7 or 8 o’clock, depending on the weather.

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

Related

Sunset Amusement Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners
496 P.2d 840 (California Supreme Court, 1972)
Herrmann v. Larson
7 N.W.2d 330 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1943)
Abbott v. City of Des Moines
298 N.W. 649 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1941)
Alster v. Allen
42 P.2d 969 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1935)
Higgins v. Decorah Produce Co.
242 N.W. 109 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1932)
Smith v. City of Iowa City
239 N.W. 29 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1931)
Roukovina v. Island Farm Creamery Co.
200 N.W. 350 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1924)
Kobielski v. Belle Isle East Side Creamery Co.
193 N.W. 214 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Gillian v. Edwards
176 Iowa 449 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 Iowa 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-flynn-dairy-co-iowa-1915.