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...
Get Sturges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch.D. 852 (1879), High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, United Kingdom, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today.
Apr 11, 2017 · Main arguments in this case: Can a defendant rely on in his defence that the cause of a nuisance has been existing even before the claimant arrived at it? This case also shows that a locality can play an influential role in deciding whether an act is a nuisance or not; and when a defendant cannot rely on the defence of prescription.
Decision. The Court of Appeal held in favour of the claimant. The defendant’s activities were a nuisance. He had not acquired a prescriptive easement to cause a nuisance because his activities only became a nuisance after the claimant built the consulting room. This was too recent for prescription.
Sturges, a doctor moved next door to a confectioner, Bridgman, who had produced sweets for sale in his kitchen for many years. The doctor constructed a small shed for the purpose of private practice on the boundary of the two properties. However, the loud noises from the confectioner's...
People also ask
What case was Sturges v Bridgman?
What is liuk Sturges v Bridgman?
What happened in Sturges & Bridgman?
Facts. Doctor (C) moved into a house and built a shed to carry out his private practice. C’s shed was next to a confectioner (D) and the noise of the pestle and mortar was clearly audible from his shed. C sued D in nuisance and sought an injunction.
