Senatore v. Blinn

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Senatore v. Blinn

174 N.E.2d 437, 342 Mass. 778

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 26, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 174 N.E.2d 437 (Senatore v. Blinn) 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

Senatore v. Blinn, 174 N.E.2d 437, 342 Mass. 778 (Mass. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. The plaintiffs have appealed from a final decree dismissing their bill to enjoin a private nuisance on the premises of the defendant. The parties are neighbors residing in a residential section on the edge of Wellesley and Weston. A master, to whom the case was referred, found that, for a period of three or more years, the defendant has permitted his son, a boy of high school age, and sometimes his friends, to use his property in pursuance of the hobby of dismantling and repairing old automobiles. Prom the end of 1958 to the spring of 1960, four cars were dismantled and most of their parts taken to the junk yard. Some of the work was done with an acetylene torch. On four occasions since the suit was brought in 1959 different old cars have been the subject of substantial repair work. The plaintiffs have been annoyed by the noise of the work, and the unsightly appearance of the old cars and the equipment used in working on them. The acts complained of have been sporadic. The existence of a nuisance is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. Ferriter v. Herlihy, 287 Mass. 138, 143. Kasper v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. 291 Mass. 24, 27. It cannot be said from the reported facts that the use of the defendant’s premises has been so persistent and unreasonable that an injunction is justified.

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

Decree affirmed. The plaintiffs have appealed from a final decree dismissing their bill to enjoin a private nuisance on the premises of the defendant. The parties are neighbors residing in a residential section on the edge of Wellesley and Weston. A master, to whom the case was referred, found that, for a period of three or more years, the defendant has permitted his son, a boy of high school age, and sometimes his friends, to use his property in pursuance of the hobby of dismantling and repairing old automobiles. Prom the end of 1958 to the spring of 1960, four cars were dismantled and most of their parts taken to the junk yard. Some of the work was done with an acetylene torch. On four occasions since the suit was brought in 1959 different old cars have been the subject of substantial repair work. The plaintiffs have been annoyed by the noise of the work, and the unsightly appearance of the old cars and the equipment used in working on them. The acts complained of have been sporadic. The existence of a nuisance is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. Ferriter v. Herlihy, 287 Mass. 138, 143. Kasper v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. 291 Mass. 24, 27. It cannot be said from the reported facts that the use of the defendant’s premises has been so persistent and unreasonable that an injunction is justified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 N.E.2d 437, 342 Mass. 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senatore-v-blinn-mass-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack