Stottlemyer v. Crampton
235 Md. 138, 1964 Md. LEXIS 729, 200 A.2d 644 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful activity, such as driving cattle along a public highway, does not constitute an enjoinable nuisance unless it causes actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities or materially diminishes property value or seriously interferes with its ordinary comfort and enjoyment, beyond the typical inconveniences expected in a particular community setting.
Facts:
- Austin S. Stottlemyer and Fannie M. Stottlemyer owned cattle and resided near Antietam Furnace, an unincorporated village with about 14 houses and 51 residents.
- For at least 35 years, the Stottlemyers, and their predecessor in title, habitually drove a herd of 40 to 50 cattle from their barn on the north edge of the village to pasture fields on the south edge.
- The cattle were driven approximately 1200 feet along the public road through Antietam Furnace twice daily, around 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., with each trip lasting between 3.75 and 5 minutes.
- Residents of Antietam Furnace complained that the cattle driving caused some congestion of vehicular traffic, left manure on the road that was tracked into buildings, and created an ill-smelling odor, making walking along the road unpleasant.
- Two county Health Department sanitarians testified that the manure was not dangerous to health, and other witnesses stated there was no undue amount of manure or unpleasant odors that interfered with road use.
- The Stottlemyers contended that an alternative private lane on their property was hilly and dangerous for the cattle, and would require fencing to prevent the animals from entering cultivated fields.
Procedural Posture:
- Residents of Antietam Furnace (appellees) filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Washington County, alleging that the Stottlemyers' practice of driving cattle through the village constituted a nuisance.
- Austin S. Stottlemyer and Fannie M. Stottlemyer (appellants) filed an answer denying the material allegations of the bill.
- The Chancellor, after hearing evidence and viewing the area, found no damage to the appellees' properties sufficient for injunctive relief.
- The Chancellor, however, granted an injunction, ruling that the driving of cattle through the village constituted a nuisance due to congestion of traffic and considerable manure on the road.
- The Stottlemyers appealed the Chancellor's decree to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
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 lawful activity of driving a herd of cattle twice daily along a public road through a rural village constitute an enjoinable nuisance when it causes minor traffic congestion, leaves manure on the road, and occasionally results in manure being tracked into buildings?
Opinions:
Majority - Sybert, J.
No, the lawful activity of driving a herd of cattle twice daily along a public road through a rural village does not constitute an enjoinable nuisance merely because it causes minor traffic congestion and leaves manure on the road. The Court affirmed that driving cattle on a public road is a lawful activity and not a nuisance per se, a right recognized by common law and implicitly by Maryland statute (Code (1957), Art. 66C, sec. 467), which regulates, but does not prohibit, such activity. While a lawful activity can become a nuisance, it must significantly interfere with the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of property. The standard for nuisance requires proof that the activity either produces a condition of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities, or materially diminishes the value of property, or seriously interferes with its ordinary comfort and enjoyment. The evidence presented by the appellees, concerning occasional traffic obstruction for a few minutes, the presence of manure on the highway, and its occasional tracking into buildings, was deemed to be mere inconvenience and annoyance. The Court found this did not meet the high threshold for injunctive relief, especially in a rural community where such conditions are expected. There was no evidence of diminution in property value, and the physical discomfort shown was not substantial enough to warrant an injunction. The Court concluded that the complaints were 'necessary consequences and inevitable incidents' of the appellants' lawful right to use the road, rendering the existence of an alternative private lane immaterial.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold for proving a private nuisance, particularly when the complained-of activity is lawful and customary within a specific community context. It reinforces that minor inconveniences and annoyances, especially in a rural setting, do not generally rise to the level of an enjoinable nuisance. The decision emphasizes a balancing of rights, where the lawful use of property or a public way will only be restrained if it results in substantial harm or discomfort, setting a precedent that not every disagreeable consequence of another's lawful action warrants judicial intervention.
