Skip to main content
· 12/15/1890

McMenomy v. Baud

Citations

  • 87 Cal. 134
  • 26 P. 795
  • 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1108

Syllabus

<p>Nuisance — Brass-foundry— Proof Required. — A brass-foundry and machinery incident thereto are not prima facie nuisances, and one complaining of them must allege and prove that they are such by reason of their peculiar location or the improper or negligent manner in which they are conducted.</p> <p>Id.—Qualified Injunction. — Where the injurious effects complained of as resulting from the running of a foundry and machinery may be prevented without entirely abating or enjoining the works or the operations thereof, only the canses of the specific injurious effects proved should be enjoined, leaving the defendant at liberty to operate his works, if he can, and elects to do so, in such a manner as to remove the cause and prevent the injury.</p> <p>Id. — Review on Appeal — Bindings Contrary to Evidence — Reversal of Judgment — Modification of Injunction. —Where, on account of exaggerated findings of fact not justified by the evidence, the extent of the relief by injunction to which the plaintiff is entitled against the improper operation of the foundry cannot he finally determined on the appeal, a judgment totally enjoining the operation of the foundry will be reversed, and not modified.</p>

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.