Ensign v. Walls
Michigan Supreme Court
34 N.W.2d 549 (1948)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
For years, Walls (defendant) operated a business to raise, breed, and board St. Bernard dogs near the property of Ensign (plaintiff). After Walls had operated the business for several years, Ensign and several other families moved into the same neighborhood. Ensign brought suit against Walls on the ground that her business constituted a nuisance. Ensign alleged that noxious odors were constantly emitted from the property, that it was infested with rodents and flies, that dogs frequently escaped and roamed the neighborhood, and that the constant barking of dogs interfered with Ensign’s use and enjoyment of his property. Walls denied Ensign’s allegations and stated that she had operated her business on that property since 1926 and had invested significant money in the buildings and equipment there. She argued that Ensign was not entitled to damages. The trial court found Walls’ business constituted a nuisance, and that Walls had not acquired by prescriptive use the right to continue the nuisance. Walls appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carr, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.