Oehler v. Levy
139 Ill. App. 294, 1908 Ill. App. LEXIS 558 (1907)
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of 'coming to a nuisance' is not a valid defense in Illinois; a lawful business established prior to neighboring residences may be enjoined as a nuisance if the locality evolves into a residential district and the business becomes injurious to the health or comfort of the new residents.
Facts:
- Levy owned and operated a stable containing approximately twenty horses and several wagons used for a newspaper delivery business.
- Oehler and others owned a three-story brick building containing ten residential flats on the adjoining lots.
- Large quantities of manure were allowed to accumulate on the stable premises, emitting noxious and offensive odors that permeated the complainants' apartments.
- Levy's employees harnessed and unharnessed horses during the middle of the night, creating noise that habitually disturbed the tenants' sleep.
- The stable employees frequently used loud, profane, and obscene language that was audible to the occupants of the apartment building.
- The neighborhood, originally mixed, had evolved into a thickly settled residence locality populated largely by physicians and students.
- The stable operation materially reduced the rental value of the complainants' property.
- Levy operated the stable on the premises before the complainants' apartment building was constructed.
Procedural Posture:
- Complainants (Oehler et al.) filed a bill in chancery in the Superior Court against the defendant (Levy).
- The Superior Court entered a decree finding the stable a nuisance but limiting relief to sanitary measures and refusing to enjoin the stable's operation entirely.
- Complainants appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois assigning errors regarding the insufficiency of the injunction.
- Defendant assigned cross-errors arguing the bill should have been dismissed for want of equity.
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 the priority of occupation by a stable owner prevent neighboring property owners from obtaining an injunction against the stable as a nuisance when the neighborhood subsequently evolves into a residential district?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
No, the priority of occupation does not entitle a business owner to maintain a nuisance that injures the health or comfort of neighbors in a growing city. The court reasoned that while the 'coming to the nuisance' doctrine was formerly a defense, it is now 'exploded' in modern jurisprudence regarding growing cities. Citing Laflin & Rand Powder Co. v. Tearney, the court held that public policy requires offensive trades to yield to residential expansion. Although the stable was a lawful business, the change in the neighborhood's character to a residential district meant the stable could no longer operate in a manner injurious to health and comfort. The court acknowledged the difficulty of framing a decree but held that an injunction must be precise; therefore, the defendant is enjoined not from having a stable entirely, but from maintaining it in such numbers or manner as to habitually disturb the sleep, health, or comfort of the neighbors.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift from agrarian property concepts to modern urban planning principles. By rejecting the 'coming to the nuisance' defense, the court affirmed that property rights are dynamic and relative to the changing character of a neighborhood ('sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas'). It prioritizes human health and the 'highest and best' economic use of land (residential density) over the 'first in time' rights of commercial enterprises. This establishes a precedent that businesses in expanding cities must adapt their operations or relocate as residential zones encroach, regardless of how long they have been established.
