Ottawa Gas-light & Coke Co. v. Thompson

Citations

• 39 Ill. 598

Syllabus

<p>1. Nuisance—wTiat constitutes a private nuisance. In an action against a gas company, the plaintiff complained in Ms declaration of certain smells, smokes, etc., caused by the manufacture of gas, so annoying as to be a nuisance, rendering Ms premises uncomfortable for habitation. The court were inclined to the opinion that the weight of authority is in favor of the action,—that such a nuisance as was alleged comes properly under the denomination of a private nuisance, and therefore actionable.</p> <p>2. Parties—of the character of interest requisite to maintain a suit for injury to property. Where the owner of a well gives to another a mere verbal license to enter upon the premises and take water from the well, the latter acquires no such interest in the well as will entitle him to recover damages for an injury to the water therein.</p> <p>3. Same—distu/rhance of an easement. Where a third person injures the water of a well, an action on the case, for a disturbance of his easement, may possibly lie in favor of one having a verbal license from the owner to use such water, but not an action for the destruction of the property of another.</p> <p>4. Verdict—where a count combines a good and a defective cause of action. In an action on the case two distinct grounds of injury were alleged in each of the counts in the declaration, upon one of which grounds a right of action might arise, but upon the other no recovery could be had, and proof was given respecting both of them. A verdict for the plaintiff was not allowed to stand because the two alleged grounds of complaint were so coupled together that it was impossible to know for which alleged injury the vefdict was found.</p>