Sawyer v. Davis
1884 Mass. LEXIS 72, 136 Mass. 239 (1884)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legislature, under its police power, may enact a statute authorizing an activity that a court has previously enjoined as a private nuisance. Such a statute constitutes a change in the law that provides grounds for a court to dissolve the prior injunction.
Facts:
- A manufacturing company (plaintiffs) regularly rang a large bell at specific times to notify its employees.
- The noise from the bell disturbed nearby residents (defendants) in the enjoyment of their property.
- The residents considered the bell ringing to be a private nuisance.
- After a court enjoined the bell-ringing, the state legislature passed a statute (St. 1883, c. 84).
- This new statute authorized manufacturers to ring bells at times designated in writing by local municipal officers.
- The relevant municipal officers subsequently granted the manufacturing company written permission to ring their bell at the very hours that the court had previously forbidden.
Procedural Posture:
- In a prior case, residents (defendants here) sued a manufacturing company (plaintiffs here) to stop the ringing of a factory bell.
- The court of first instance determined that the bell ringing constituted a private nuisance.
- The court issued a final injunction prohibiting the manufacturing company from ringing its bell at certain times.
- Following the passage of a new state statute and receipt of municipal authorization, the manufacturing company filed the present suit seeking to dissolve the prior injunction.
- The residents demurred to the company's suit, arguing that it failed to state a valid legal claim for relief.
- The case came before the state's highest court to rule on the demurrer.
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 statute, enacted under the state's police power, that authorizes an activity previously enjoined by a court as a private nuisance, provide a valid basis for dissolving that injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - C. Allen, J.
Yes, a statute authorizing a previously enjoined activity provides a valid basis for dissolving the injunction. The legislature possesses broad police power to regulate how property is used and business is conducted for the general good. This power includes the authority to define what constitutes a legal nuisance in the future and to change the common law. An injunction, while final as to the facts and law existing at the time of its issuance, does not create a permanent vested right that is immune to subsequent changes in the law. A new statute that expressly sanctions the previously enjoined conduct is a 'change of circumstances' that justifies the dissolution of the injunction, as the legislature has determined that the public benefit of the activity outweighs the private annoyance.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the supremacy of legislative police power over prior judicial remedies for private nuisance. It clarifies that an injunction is a flexible remedy, contingent on the state of the law, rather than an absolute and permanent grant of rights. The ruling prevents parties from using a court order to 'vest' rights in a way that would insulate them from future, validly enacted legislation. This principle ensures that courts cannot permanently obstruct the legislature's ability to balance competing interests and redefine what is permissible for the public good, even if it re-authorizes conduct previously deemed a nuisance.
