Bowden v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.

The general rules governing the right of adjoining owners to relief from disturbance on account of the use of great mechanical power are plainly and authoritatively stated by the appellate division of this department. Rosenheimer v. Gaslight Co., 36 App. Div. 1 , 55 N. Y. Supp. 192 ; Id., 39 App. Div. 482 , 57 N. Y. Supp. 330 . In the strict sense, the use of machinery producing noise or vibration injures neighboring property. But to some extent such results must come to all who live in a busy, prosperous city. The hum and throb of mechanical life cannot be wholly confined to the walls of any structure. Hence the true test must be whether the use by the owner of the industry is reasonable, having due regard to all of the interests affected, and the requirements of public policy. Booth v. Railroad Co., 140 N. Y. 267 , 35 N. E. 592 . The plaintiff, Bowden, has tenanted the building 121 East Twelfth street in the city of Hew York from 1891 till now by yearly leases, renting rooms to transient and permanent lodgers, and living there himself, without a family. In June, 1894, the defendant erected a power house adjoining, and occupies since May, 1895, for that purpose, 115 to 119, inclusive, East Twelfth street. It has gradually equipped the building with engines, dynamos, and the usual machinery to supply an increasing custom for electrical service, until that supply has reached several thousand lights and horse power. The plaintiff avers that the use of the machinery and appliances has greatly depreciated the value of his tenancy by the vibrations in his building, the noise, falling soot, cinders, and water from condensed steam. He seeks an injunction and damages. I am satisfied from the evidence that the customary use by the defendant of its generating power has been reasonable, and the departures therefrom only occasional, caused by overloading or carelessness. The building of the plaintiff is old, and out of repair, and its depreciation of rental value mainly caused by its undesirability for living purposes on that account, and the lessening availability of residences in that locality. . It will not answer to use the discretionary power of injunction to stop a large industry of public utility unless the occasion requires such extreme relief. In the application of the principles governing such cases as this full consideration must be given to the situation of both parties. The defendant has erected a large structure, and equipped it with expensive machinery, not to annoy its neighbors, but to best serve a large area of contiguous customers; and has constructed its power house with care and stability for the permanent future. It has the right to use its plant for effective generation of electricity with the

Judgment for plaintiff, with damages and costs.