Sommers Mercantile Co. v. Rheinfrank House Wrecking Co.

The affidavits satisfy me that the defendant, in the conduct of its operations in removing: the structure near the plaintiff’s, place of business, has not caused annoyance or injury to neighboring premises, other than would be inseparable from a careful and reasonable use of the property for this temporary purpose. A large building cannot be removed without the creation of some dust, and, as would appear, the defendant is. availing itself of every reasonable means of lessening the inconvenience to persons in the vicinity. As was said by Judge Andrews in Cogswell v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 103 N. Y. 10 , 13, 8 N. E. 537 , 57 Am. Rep. 701 :

“The compromises exacted by the necessities of the social state, and the fact • that some inconvenience to others must of necessity often attend the ordinary use of property, without permitting which there could in many cases be of no available use at all, have compelled the recognition, in all systems of jurisprudence, of the principle that each member of society must submit to, annoyances consequent upon the ordinary and common use of