A hospital constructed and maintained for the treatment of contagious and infectious diseases is not per se a nuisance. ( Board of Health v. Inhabitants of Cityof Trenton (N.J. Ch.), 63 A. 897.) In San Diego TuberculosisAssn. v. East San Diego, 186 Cal. 252 [17 A.L.R. 513, 200 P. 393], this court, disposing of the contention that a hospital, no matter how well conducted, is a menace to the public peace, morals, health and comfort, said: 'A well conducted, modern hospital, even one for the treatment of contagious and infectious diseases, is not such a menace, but on the contrary one of the most beneficent institutions.
487; a factory for manufacturing agricultural implements, Wolcott v. Melick, 11 N.J. Eq. (3 Stock.) 204; a pottery, Ross v. Butler, 19 N.J. Eq. (4 C.E. Gr.) 294; a gas works, Cleveland v. Citizens Gas Light Co., 20 N.J. Eq. (5 C.E. Gr.) 201; a slaughter-house, Attorney-General v. Steward Taylor, 20 N.J. Eq. (5 C.E. Gr.) 415; a saw-mill, Duncan v. Hayes Greenwood, 22 N.J. Eq. (7 C.E. Gr.) 25; a pest-house, State [ ex rel] Board of Health v. [ Inhabitants of City of] Trenton, [ N.J. Ch.] 63 A. 897. Each of these cases exhibits a situation of impending harm of far greater magnitude than that shown here, and in all of them the court refused to interfere with the building, although in some instances it enjoined a particular method of carrying on the business which threatened or proved to be injurious to others, and in this respect a nuisance. * * * equity will not interfere by injunction to restrain the erection of a building unless the building is so intimately and essentially a part of an unlawful business as to make it apparent that the combination of building and business spells nuisance. As was said in Cleveland v. Citizens Gas Light Company, supra, when it is not made to appear that the business for which the building is intended cannot possibly be carried on without becoming a nuisance, this court will deny the injunction. * * *"
This view appears to have been uniformly entertained by this court. Wolcott v. Melick, 11 N. J. Eq. 204, 66 Am. Dec. 790; Ross v. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq. 294, 303, 97 Am. Dec. 654; Cleveland v. Citizens' Gaslight Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 201; Duncan v. Hayes, 22 N. J. Eq. 25, 29; Board of Health v. Trenton (N. J. Ch.) 63 Atl. 897; Patton v. North American Home, 77 N. J. Eq. 464, 78 Atl. 677. See, also, Barry v. Smith, 191 Mass. 78, 77 N. E. 1099, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1028, 6 Ann. Cas. 817; Frazer v. Chicago, 186 Ill. 480, 57 N. E. 1055, 51 L. R. A. 306, 78 Am. St. Rep. 296.
In such circumstances a court of equity will not interfere. If, in the prosecution of the business, a nuisance is created, it may interpose. This court refused to restrain as a nuisance the erection of a blacksmith shop (Butler v. Rogers, 9 N.J.Eq. 487), a factory for manufacturing agricultural implements (Wolcott v. Melick, 11 N.J.Eq. 204, 66 Am. Dec. 790), a pottery (Ross v. Butler, 19 N.J.Eq. 294, 97 Am. Dec. 654), a gas works (Cleveland v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 20 N.J.Eq. 201), a slaughterhouse (Attorney General v. Steward & Taylor, 20 N.J.Eq. 415), a sawmill (Duncan v. Hayes & Greenwood, 22 N.J.Eq. 25), a pesthouse (Board of Health v. Trenton, 63 Atl. 897). Each of these cases exhibits a situation of impending harm of far greater magnitude than that shown here, and in all of them the court refused to interfere with the building, although in some instances it enjoined a particular method of carrying on the business which threatened or proved to be injurious to others and in this respect a nuisance.