Ensign v. Walls
34 N.W.2d 549 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of "coming to the nuisance" is not absolute and will not prevent a court from enjoining a business that has become a nuisance due to subsequent residential development. To establish a prescriptive right to maintain a nuisance, the defendant must prove the nuisance consistently produced the same level and character of injury for the entire statutory period.
Facts:
- Since 1926, the defendant operated a business in Detroit for raising, breeding, and boarding St. Bernard dogs.
- The defendant invested a considerable sum of money in purchasing the property and erecting buildings for her business.
- Plaintiffs are property owners and residents in the immediate neighborhood of the defendant's business.
- The majority of the plaintiffs moved into the neighborhood in recent years, after the defendant's business was already established.
- The business allegedly produced obnoxious odors, continual dog barking, and infestations of rats and flies.
- On occasion, dogs escaped from the defendant's property and roamed the neighborhood.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the defendant in a Michigan circuit court (trial court), seeking an injunction to stop her dog breeding and boarding business.
- The trial court, after a hearing and a personal inspection of the premises, found that the business constituted a nuisance.
- The trial court issued a decree enjoining the defendant from operating the business at that location after 90 days.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the trial court's decree to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a business that was established before the surrounding area became residential acquire a prescriptive right to continue operating in a manner that constitutes a nuisance to later-arriving residents?
Opinions:
Majority - Carr, J.
No. A business that was established before the surrounding area became residential does not acquire an absolute right to continue operating as a nuisance to later-arriving residents. The court held that while the fact that plaintiffs "came to the nuisance" is a factor to consider, it is not a controlling defense. As a community becomes more populated, a business that becomes a nuisance must yield to the public's right to health and the comfortable enjoyment of property. The court also rejected the defendant's claim of a prescriptive right, finding she failed to meet the heavy burden of proving that her business had produced an injury of the same grade and character for the entire 15-year statutory period. The court affirmed the injunction, reasoning that the nuisance was inherent to the nature of the large-scale dog breeding business and could not be remedied through regulation.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the effectiveness of two key defenses in nuisance law: prescriptive rights and "coming to the nuisance." It establishes that as a once-remote area develops into a residential community, a pre-existing business may be enjoined if its operations become a nuisance to the new residents. The decision places a high evidentiary burden on defendants claiming a prescriptive right to maintain a nuisance, requiring proof of consistent injury over time, which is very difficult for nuisances like odors and noise. This precedent strengthens the position of homeowners in developing areas against established agricultural or commercial operations that interfere with the residential character of the neighborhood.
Unlock the full brief for Ensign v. Walls