TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sardo v. James Russell Boiler Works Co.

Concetta D. Sardo v. James Russell Boiler Works Company

Sardo v. James Russell Boiler Works Co., 241 Mass. 215 (1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 13, 1922
Judges
Braley
Citations
241 Mass. 215

Opinion of the Court — Braley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Braley, J.

This is a bill in equity to enjoin the defendant from

so operating its boiler works, which are in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiff’s property, as to create a nuisance, and for damages caused by loud and disturbing noises in the manufacture of heavy iron tanks by the use of sledge hammers upon metal wedges inserted in large pieces of sheet metal, and the operation of pneumatic riveters. The suit was referred to a master and upon the coming in of his report, to which no exceptions were taken, the bill was dismissed, and the suit is before us on appeal.

The plaintiff does not press for injunctive relief, and the question therefore is whether she is entitled to damages. It is plain on the report that damages should be assessed. The master on unreported evidence finds that, “On account of the proximity of the plaintiff’s building, and the fact that the windows in the defendant’s property are directly in the rear of the plaintiff’s premises, there is no question but what the plaintiff’s property has been damaged to some extent. It is not as desirable a place in which to live as it was before the boiler shop was built. The plaintiff is receiving more rent than she was prior to the building of the defendant’s plant, and her property has increased in value, but this is due to causes which have affected all real estate, but I have no doubt that any one contemplating buying the plaintiff’s property would pay more for it if the defendant’s plant were not in such close proximity than he would be willing to pay under the present circumstances.

*217 ' “It is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to judge how far the plaintiff’s property has failed to appreciate in value by reason of the presence of the defendant’s plant. In my opinion, $500 is a fair and reasonable sum at which to fix the plaintiff’s damages, and I therefore award her that amount.”

The decree must be reversed and a decree with costs is to be entered awarding the plaintiff $500.

Ordered accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1925: 11933: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Strachan v. Beacon Oil Co.146 N.E. 787 (Mass. 1925)
  2. Tortorella v. H. Traiser & Co.188 N.E. 254 (Mass. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Tortorella v. H. Traiser & Co.188 N.E. 254 (Mass. 1933)
  2. Strachan v. Beacon Oil Co.146 N.E. 787 (Mass. 1925)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list