Fay v. Whitman
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sitterle v. Victoria Cold Storage Co. (Tex. App. 1930)
- Davis v. Sawyer (Mass. 1882)
- De Blois v. Bowers (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1930)
- Ryder v. Board of Health (Mass. 1930)
- Soderburg v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. (Iowa 1914)
- Bemis v. Temple (Mass. 1894)
- Harley v. Merrill Brick Co. (Iowa 1891)
- Rogers v. Elliott (Mass. 1888)
- Woodward v. City of Worcester (Mass. 1876)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The instructions given to the jury at the trial were sufficiently favorable to the plaintiff. The third instruction is somewhat obscure and ambiguous; but, when taken in connection with the others, the meaning of the Whole is clear; to wit, that, while no liability results from those occasional or periodical exhalations that arise from such removals of filth as usually become necessary from the occupation of lands for purposes of business, or even domestic use, yet, when the nature of the business is such that removals become unusually frequent, or that such exhalations become permanent or frequent, an action will lie for the injury occasioned thereby to another in the enjoyment of his own premises. The instructions asked for by the plaintiff made no such discrimination. They required an immunity from any degree of impurity of air, which would be incompatible with the assemblage of men into communities. They were therefore rightly refused. The substance of all the prayers, except so far as obnoxious to this objection, was embraced in the instructions actually given.
The testimony, offered by the plaintiff, from other persona
If the proposed testimony was all included in one offer, the fact that a part was incompetent did not require nor warrant the exclusion of that part which was competent and proper for the consideration of the jury. Such testimony having been excluded by the court upon the objection of the defendant, the
Exceptions must be sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.