Citations
- 81 F. Supp. 177
Full opinion text
SHELBOURNE, Chief Judge.
The difficult question involved in this case is not novel. It has been many times before many Courts.
No better statement of the problem could be found than in the case of De Blois v. Bowers, D.C., 44 F.2d 621, 623— “Just where the line should be drawn between, on the one side, the interests of a community in its industrial establishments which give occupation to its inhabitants and revenue in the form of taxes and in other ways, and, on the other side, individuals who are annoyed or rendered uncomfortable by the operation of such establishments, is, as the cases say, not easy to define.”
“There is no doubt” said the Supreme Court in the case of Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 17 S.Ct. 864, 866, 42 L.Ed. 260 — “of the general proposition that a man may do what he will with his own, but this right is subordinate to another, which finds expression in the familiar maxim, ‘sic utere tuo ut alienum non tedas.’ His right to erect what he pleases upon his own land will not justify him in maintaining a nuisance, or in carrying on a business or trade that is offensive to his neighbors.” '
This action, instituted July 22, 1947, by the City of Louisville, in, and removed from, the Jefferson Circuit Court, by the defendant National Carbide Corporation, is an application for an injunction, or