Tobin v. Kolb

1 Citing case

  1. Bloch v. McCown

    219 Ala. 656 (Ala. 1929)   Cited 25 times

    A business lawful in its nature, and not a nuisance in one locality, may become so in another locality. Higgins v. Bloch, 213 Ala. 209, 104 So. 429; Nevins v. McGavock, 214 Ala. 93, 106 So. 597; Magnolia Pet. Co. v. Wright, 124 Okl. 55, 254 P. 41; McPherson v. First Pr. Church, 120 Okl. 40, 248 P. 561, 51 A.L.R. 1215; State ex rel. v. New Orleans, 154 La. 271, 97 So. 440, 33 A.L.R. 260; Conway v. Gampel, 235 Mich. 511, 209 N.W. 562. Courts judicially know that a gasoline filling station, though not a nuisance per se, will, if run in a residential neighborhood, annoy or injure the comfort, health, or safety of adjacent residents, and constitute a nuisance. Magnolia Pet. Co. v. Wright, supra; Code 1923, ยงยง 9271-9276; McPherson v. First Pr. Church, supra; Tobin v. Kolb, 88 Pa. Super. 80. A filling station, so situated as that automobiles entering or leaving same throw the glare of their headlights directly into the doors or windows of adjoining residences, is a nuisance as to the occupants of such residences. Nat. Ref. Co. v. Batte, 135 Miss. 819, 100 So. 388, 35 A.L.R. 91; Nevins v. McGavock, supra.