Barrow v. Gaillardanne

Citations

• 122 La. 558
• 47 So. 891
• 1908 La. LEXIS 498

Syllabus

<p>1. Nuisance (§ 3*) — Evidence—Injunction.</p> <p>The owner of a sugar plantation who wrongfully throws the slops from his sugarkouse into a slop ditch conducting them through it to a canal in the rear of his plantation in manner such as enables them to flow in large quantities down on the property below to its injury commits a positive act which entitles the owners of the lower estate to prevent its continuance by injunction in the court where that act is committed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Nuisance, Gent. Dig. § 25; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]</p> <p>2. Limitation oe Actions (§ 55*) — Injunction— Continuing Nuisance.</p> <p>The prescription of one year is not pleada-ble in bar of a demand for an injunction against a present continuing nuisance.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Limitation of Actions, Gent. Dig. § 304; Dec. Dig. § 55.*]</p> <p>3. Nuisance (§ 3*) — Justification.</p> <p>The provisions of article 660 of the Civil Code cannot be successfully invoked by the owner of an upper estate to justify him in throwing the slops from his sugarhouse through a slop ditch-in large quantities upon the property below in manner such as to injure it. That article refers to waters which flow naturally from the upper estate, and not to the refuse which results from the manufacture of sugar in the sugarhouse containing deleterious substances.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Nuisance, Dec. Dig. § 3.*]</p> <p>4. Nuisance (§ 75*) —Public Nuisances — Abatement by Suit of Individual.</p> <p>The fact that a particular act constitutes a public nuisance does not deprive an individual who suffers a special injury therefrom from having recourse to a private remedy to have it abated.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Nuisance, Cent. Dig. §§ 176, 177; Dec. Dig. § 75.*]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>