Opper v. Davega
Opinion of the Court
The case was tried upon the theory that the "two defendants, landlord and tenant, were maintaining a nuisance, and that as a result of that nuisance plaintiff’s intestate was-injured. The court expressly charged the jury that the action was based upon a nuisance, and that it was not necessary, therefore, for the plaintiff to show lack of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. To sustain this judgment, based as it was upon the maintenance of a nuisance, there must be evidence which would justify a finding that the defendants or one of them did maintain such nuisance.
‘ At the end of the plaintiff’s case defendant Bavega moved to dis-' miss the complaint, which motion was denied, and an exception taken. The motion was renewed at the end of the whole ¡case and again denied, and said defendant again duly excepted. ; I. think these exceptions present the question as to whether there was any evi-.
I think, therefore, that the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
McLaughlin, J\, concurred ; Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ., concurred in result.
Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event. Order filed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.