Case ID: ill-app_78/html/0417-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Opinion Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Winters v. David J. Winters.
    1. • Nuisance—Threshing Machine.—The setting of a grain threshing machine within two hundred feet of the plaintiff’s dwelling and the threshing of grain there'a whole day, whereby dust, chaif and smoke were blown into his house, to the annoyance of his family and the injury of his furniture, is a nuisance.
    Trespass on the Case, for a nuisance. Trial in the Circuit Court of Schuyler County; the Hon. Harry Higbee, Judge, presiding. Verdict * •and judgment for plaintiff. Error by defendant.
    Heard in this court at the May term, 1898.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 5, 1898.
    Glass & Bottenberg, attorneys for plaintiff in error.
    L. A. Jarman and D. L. Mourning, attorneys for defendant in error.
   Opinion Per Curiam.

This writ of error is prosecuted in hopes of reversing an insignificant judgment of $10, recovered by defendant in error against plaintiff in error for causing a nuisance near the residence of the defendant in error.

The nuisance complained of was the setting of a grain threshing machine within 200 feet of the plaintiff’s dwelling and the threshing of grain there a whole day, whereby dust, chaff and smoke were blown into his house, to the annoyance of his family and the injury of his furniture. The plaintiff showed a clear right to recover, and the most serious error appearing in the record was suffered by him, and that is the trivial amount of damages allowed by the jury. Judgment affirmed.