Woodstock Burying Ground Ass'n v. Hager

68 Vt. 488
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedMay 15, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 68 Vt. 488 (Woodstock Burying Ground Ass'n v. Hager) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Woodstock Burying Ground Ass'n v. Hager, 68 Vt. 488 (Vt. 1896).

Opinion

TAFT, J.

This action is one of case. The plaiütiff’s claim is that “by reason of condition of the defendant’s lot, it became and was a nusans, and that it (the plaintiff) had a right to recoveras damage caused by such nusans, the cost of filling the lot.” The court found that the defendant’s lot “was unsightly and disfigured and needed to be filled and graded to put it in proper and suitable condition.” This is not synonymous with nor equivalent to a finding that the lot became and was a nusans. The law will not declare a thing a nusans because it is unsightly and disfigured nor because it is not in a proper and suitable condition, nor because it is unpleasant to the eye and a violation of the rules of propriety and good taste, nor because the property of another is rendered less valuable. No fanciful notions are recognized. The law does not cater to men’s tastes, nor consult their convenience merely. It guards and upholds their material rights and shields them from unwarrantable invasion. In the absence of a finding that the lot was a nusans, the judgment below was correct. Had the finding been, that the lot was a nusans, we do not pass upon the question of the plaintiff’s right of recovery, as it is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Coty v. Ramsey Associates, Inc.
546 A.2d 196 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1988)
Napro Development Corp. v. Town of Berlin
376 A.2d 342 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1977)
Feldstein v. Kammauf
121 A.2d 716 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1956)
State Ex Rel. Tollefson v. Mitchell
171 P.2d 245 (Washington Supreme Court, 1946)
Grubbs v. Wooten
5 S.E.2d 874 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Parkersburg Builders Material Co. v. Barrack
191 S.E. 368 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1937)
People v. Rubenfeld
172 N.E. 485 (New York Court of Appeals, 1930)
Hardin v. Huckabay
6 La. App. 640 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1927)
Reid v. Memphis Memorial Park
5 Tenn. App. 105 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1927)
Hallman v. Atlanta Child's Home
130 S.E. 814 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Rea v. Tacoma Mausoleum Ass'n
174 P. 961 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Nelson v. Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Cemetery Ass'n
126 N.W. 723 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 Vt. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodstock-burying-ground-assn-v-hager-vt-1896.