Search results
Brief Fact Summary. For thirty years, a maker of confections conducted business in a property that use two large mortars that made a substantial amount of noise when operating. A physician, who previously had a garden in the area directly behind the mortar, decided to convert the garden into a consultation room.
- Hunt V. State
Citation69 A.3d 360 (Del. 2013) Brief Fact Summary....
- Stockett V. Tolin
Citation791 F. Supp. 1536 (S. D. Fla. 1992) Brief Fact...
- Hunt V. State
- Facts
- Issues
- Decision/Outcome
The claimant, a doctor, moved house and on the premises, he bought and built a shed in his garden to carry out his private practice within. His shed was on the boundary of the property and happened to be next door to a confectioner. The confectioner had produced sweets in his kitchen for many years before the doctor had moved in. The doctor alleged...
Whether the doctor could claim loss of amenity when he had ‘moved to the nuisance’ or not. Whether the character of the area or locality as a residential area meant that there was a nuisance.
There was a nuisance, and the fact that the doctor had ‘moved to the nuisance’ was no defence to the nuisance itself. Nor was there an easement acquired by the confectioner through long usage that entitled him to continue with his actions. What constitutes a nuisance was to be decided on a case to case basis, and it is necessary to consider the par...
Court of Appeal. Citations: (1879) 11 Ch D 852; (1879) 43 JP 716; (1879) 48 LJ Ch 785; (1879) 41 LT 219. Facts. The defendant was a confectioner whose premises neighboured the claimant’s home. The defendant used a noisy pestle and mortar from around 10am to around 1pm each day.
Sturges v Bridgman. Case summaries. Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852 Court of Appeal. The defendant ran a confectionary shop which operated a noisy pestle and mortar. It had done so for over 20 years but had no neighbouring property so there were no complaints as to its use.
The Supreme Court has long held that the Contract Clause limits a state’s power to regulate contracts between private parties. In the 1819 case Sturges v. Crowninshield, the Court examined a New York bankruptcy law that allowed insolvent debtors to obtain the discharge of their debts by surrendering their property. 1.
Case: Sturges v Bridgman (1879) In this case the judge famously quoted ‘… what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’.
Sturges v Bridgman (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852 is a landmark case in nuisance decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. It decides that what constitutes reasonable use of one's property depends on the character of the locality and that it is no defence that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance".
