Ingersoll v. Rousseau

Citations

• 35 Wash. 92
• 76 P. 513
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 418

Syllabus

<p>Nuisance — Adjoining Property — Rights Running With Land —Continuing Offense. In an action to enjoin a continuing nuisance upon adjoining premises, rendering plaintiffs’ pror° ty unfit for residence purposes, it is immaterial that plaintiff purchased his property after the commencement of the nuisance, as the right of action existing in favor of plaintiffs’ grantors runs with the land, and, also, is a continuing offense, and lapse of time bars recovery only for a completed offense.</p> <p>Nuisance — Abatement—Disorderly Houses — Toleration by City no Defense. The fact that city officials tolerate the maintenance of bawdy houses is no defense to an action to abate the same as a nuisance specially injurious to adjoining property.</p> <p>Same — Abatement at Suit of Private Citizen — Special Injury. The owner of adjoining premises may sue to abate the maintenance of bawdy houses as a public nuisance specially injurious to his premises used for residence purposes, where the occupants are compelled to witness indecent conduct and listen to unseemly noises, the injury being special and different in kind from that suffered by the general public.</p> <p>Same — Injunction to Abate Disorderly House — Remedies at Law — Inadequacy. Injunction lies to abate the maintenance of a bawdy house as a public nuisance specially injurious to plaintiffs’ adjoining property used for residence purposes, the common law remedies of indictment and action on the case being inadequate, and this rule has not been changed by statute in this state.</p>