City of New Orleans v. Lagasse

Citations

• 114 La. 1055
• 38 So. 828
• 1905 La. LEXIS 592

Syllabus

<p>NUISANCE — WHAT CONSTITUTES — OWNERS OE ADJACENT PROPERTY — REMEDIES—MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — ORDINANCES—INJUNCTION.</p> <p>1. The suit was brought and an injunction obtained by plaintiff to abate, as a nuisance, defendant’s wooden works, consisting of a planing mill and cistern factory and other woodworking machines. It is not a nuisance per se.</p> <p>2. It is not a public nuisance. The owner or owners of the adjacent properties have remedies for whatever injury or damage they may suffer. If their insurance has been increased because of the proximity of the factory to their property, that presents a question to be settled between them and defendant.</p> <p>3. The city has authority to legislate generally as relates to factories. She has no authority to enact ordinances that will affect only one factory unless it is a nuisance per se or a public nuisance.</p> <p>4. The evidence does not sustain the allegation that it is either a public nuisance or a nuisance per se.</p> <p>5. The weight and preponderance of the testimony show care, and that steps were taken to prevent accidents.</p> <p>6. While the city is right in seeking to protect property from damage and injury by action, in order to sustain its action it must appear by a preponderance of testimony that there is ground for apprehension, from which it is beyond the power of o%wners of property to protect themselves, and as to which, because of its general nature, it becomes incumbent upon the corporation to take the matter in charge. The case does not suggest any such necessity at this time, and under the management of defendant’s works as at present.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>