Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-11-26
INJUNCTION DENIED
Standard Oil Company Gets Decision
in Local Controversy.
SUIT TO ABATE ALLEGED NUISANCE
Maintenance of Tanks on Its
Premises in This City.
THE COMPANY'S POSITION

In connection with the proceedings for in
junction instituted by John G. Oeser and
William ]. Downey against the Standard
Oil Company. by which the compliments
sought an injunction to perpetually restrain
the defendant from keeping maintaining
tanks or buildings containing oil. gasoline,
etc, on its premises in this city, and for
other purposes, Justice Barnard, in Equity
Court No. 2. today announced his decision.
Upon an examination Of the whole
case the court said in disposing of the
matter. land after considering the rules
which should govern court of equity in
such matters. am not satisfied of the fact
of nuisance resulting from the business as
conducted heretofore by the defendant or
as the same may be changed by the use of
a new tank. l am therefore constrained to
deny the injunction as prayed, and to leave
the compiainants to pursue their remedy at
law. if they shall be advised
The case has been before the local courts
since the 23d of January, 1897 and has at
tracted considerable attention and been fol-
lowed with much interest. The complaint
ants reside in the vicinity of square north
of square 6!7. on which square the defend
ant has plant for the storage and sale of
oil. They stated that in 1892 the defendant
erected large ron tank, in which it kept
many thousand gallons of oil, besides main
tanning other smaller tanks and buildings
and that the defendants business of storing
aud selling oils of various grades on the
premises was nuisance The complaint
ans further Informed the court that, owing
to the liability of the oil gasoline etc to
explode and set fire to their premises. and
for other reasons, they We're kept in con-
slant fear and dread of their lives and that
of their families, and the peaceable and
comfortable enjoyment of life and property
SI,rJ
sion take place it would utterly destroy,
not only the property of the complainants
and row of houses on K street southeast,
but the lives of the residents and inmates
thereof. as Well as other property in the i'm
mediate vicinity. 1t was set FORTH in addi-
ton that. notwithstanding protest and OBJ
lection. the District authorities granted the
defendant permission to erect a new iron
oil tank and make other improvements on
its grounds.
Allegations Denied.
BY answer the Standard Oil Company de-
for fear of injury from fires or explosions
by reason of it's carelessness, and while it
admitted the inflammable and combustibe
character of the Oil kept on the premises
denied that the same was dangerous n
character, or that it was liable to explode
at any time o. do injury to the complain
ants
The court granted an injunction pendente
lite, out an appeal was taken to the Court
of Appeals. The latter body modified the
order prohibiting the defendant from con.
Quoting It's usual business on the premises,
but continued the order restraining the
use of the ne"v tank.
The premises now occupied by the Stand
ard Oil Company are practically the same
as those used by the Baltimore United OH
Company in 1891 and prior to that date. In
1891 the latter company applied to the
COMMISSIONS for permission to remove It's
buildings and tanks. The fire marshal
made q report on the matter March . 1891
and March ) the inspector of buildings was
ordered by the Commissioners to issue the
permit. The complainant Oeser, with
others, filed a petition with the Commits
soners some thing more than month after
the permit was granted asking to have it
rescinded because. 1t was charged. the bus.
mess of the oil company would injure the
property of the petitioners. No further pro.
test Or action taken by Oeser and no
protest whatever was made by the COM
p.ainant DOwney, it is said, until November
30. 1896, wnen they, with others signed a
protest addressed to the Commissioners
wherein they objected to the erection OF
the new oil tank because 1T would be
dangerous to life and property as well as
nuisance in the neighborhood and detri-
mental to the value OF real estate in that
section by retarding other proposed inn
provements.'
NOuftS comment.
In mis- opinion, Justice Barnard. among
other things, remarked that as Congress
is given exclusive legislative powers over
this District we should naturally turn 10
the laws enacted by that body to find some
provision by which this question and SIM
liar questions relating to kindred subjects
might be answered in an orderly and au
thortative manner. BY the act of Jam
uary 26, 1885,, it was stated, the Commits
siona-s are authorized to regulate the stor-
age of highly inflammable substances in
the thickly populated portions of the Dis
trict. By another section they seem %
have power to prohibit the use of EEK
plosives in the District. These powers,
together with the powers previously confer
red on the Commissioners to make and en-
force sue building regulations as they may
deem advisabo and regulations to proven;
fires and to protect health, would seem
said the court to be sufficient to cstap-
fish tribunal competent to afford ample
protection as against most of the grev.
ances enumerated in the bill Of complain
ants filed in the case.
After discussing at length the testimony
relative to the alleged explosives, Justice
Barnard said:
1.-The court is forced to the conclusion
from the scientific and expert evidence In
the case, that the complainants fears have
little foundation in fact. and if the subject
had been as well understood by them before
careful study of the testimony taken, per-
haps this litigation might not have been
commenced
Right of Defendant.
The complainants claimed that the de-
PENDANT has no right to carry on its bust
ness in a portion of the District or city so
thickly populated the one where the
business is located On this point the court
said:
THE place where it is now located is not
a neighborhood that would be chosen for
residences to any great extent if the de-
PENDANTS plant was not there. The railroad
tracks, round house. James Creek canal
brick yard, mortar plant and other bust
ness plants in the vicinity, which were there
before the defendant, have made the neigh
borhood undesirable for residences.
Ii seems to have been an appropriate place
for the business, because of the character
of the neighborhood previously established,
and this was considered by the Commits
siorers in allowing the plant to be removed
there In 1891. But If it had deprecated the
pr operty of the complainants. and that was
the only cause shown for an injunction, it
would not be a sufficient ground for euui-
able Interference.
The main issues in the case passed upon
by Justice Barnard today were submitted
to the court early last summer, and have
been under advisement since. The reading
of testimony and arguments occupied sev-