Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Compton

Citations

• 142 Ill. 511
• 18 L.R.A. 390

Syllabus

<p>1. Nuisance — action for damages therefor — when it arises — measure of recovery. The cause of action in case of an ordinary nuisance is not so much the act of the defendant as the injurious consequences resulting from his act, and hence the cause of action does not arise until such consequences occur, nor can the damages be estimated beyond the date” of bringing the first suit. It has been held, however, that where permanent structures are erected resulting in injury to adjacent realty, all damages, including prospective, may be recovered.</p> <p>2. If a private structure or other work on land is the cause of a nuisance or other tort to the plaintiff, the law will not regard it as permanent, no matter with what intention it was built, and damages can therefore be recovered only to the date of the action. But in the case of permanent injury caused by lawful public structures properly constructed and permanent in their character, damages may be allowed for the whole injury, past and prospective.</p> <p>3. In personal actions, damages accruing after the commencement of suit may be recovered, if they are the natural and necessary result of the act complained of, and when they do not themselves constitute a new cause of action. But in the case of nuisances or repeated trespasses, recovery can ordinarily be had only up to the commencement of the suit, for the reason that every continuance or repetition of the nuisance gives rise to a new cause of action.</p> <p>4. Same — recovery of damages therefor, no license to continue. There is a legal obligation to remove a nuisance, and the law will not presume the continuance of the wrong, nor allow a license to continue a wrong, or a transfer of title to result from the recovery of damages for prospective misconduct. The recovery of damages for an unlawful act, such as the erection of a private nuisance, will not render the act or the 'continuance of the nuisance legal.</p>