Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 14.djvu/791

* NUISANCE. 673 NULLIFICATION. criminal offense. It may be, on the contrary, liiglily beneficial to the community. The tanning of leather, or the manufacture of illuminating gas, or the raising of pigs, is a lawful business and may be quite necessary, but if it is conducted in such proximity to any dwelling as to render the occupancy of it uncomfortable, it amounts to a private nuisance. It is no answer by the owner of such a busincs.s that its contin- uance will benefit tliousands of people while harming but one. That one is entitled to the law's protection. Nor is it an answer that his business was established and con- ducted before I erected my dwelling. If it were, the owner of an offensive (though lawful) business could limit the growth of a city in his direction, or greatly depreciate the value of sur- rounding property. Still, a particular business will not be accounted a nuisance in one locality which will be considered such in another. A person wlio erects a dwelling in a locality given up to manufacturing or mining purposes must be deemed to assent to the sights, sounds, and odors of the locality. Even when the discomf<nt or annoyance com- plained of is not a well-establislied incident of the plaintiff's surroundings, whether it is suffi- cient in kind or amount to constitute a nuisance is often a difficult question. It is clear that trifling and tenii)orary discomforts must be put up with. The smoke that may, in certain condi- tions of the atmosphere, descend from a neigh- bor's chimney, the odors that may be wafted at times from his kitclien, though offensive and disagreeable, are not a nuisance. Between them and the dense smoke and fumes from a kiln or factory that render brcathing difficult and pro- duce nauseating sensations there is debatable groimd. on which it is diflicult to fix the exact point at which smoke and odors and noises be- come a nuisance in the eye of the law. On the one hand, it is not necessary to prove that they are such as to cause sickness. On the other, it is essential to show that they are of a character to damage property sensibly, or to render ordi- nary persons actually uncciuifnrtable. Offense to an afsthetic taste or a peculiarly sensitive or- ganism is not enough. The discomfort or an- noyance must be that of the average person in the particular situation. The right to maintain a nuisance cannot be acquired by prescription (q.v.) as against the public; but it may be gained as against in- dividuals. Even in such cases the right is not easily acquired. The one asserting it must show that for twenty years he has continued the very nuisance imder a claim of right adverse to that of the person now complaining of it (or of his predecessors in title) with the knowledge and acquiescence of the latter. In some cases the maintenance of a nuisance may be legalized by statute. The power of the British Parliament in this direction is unlimited. In the United States Congress and the State legis- latures are limited by constitutional provisions. A nuisance which amounts to the taking of private property cannot be constitutionally legalized un- less duo compensation is made to the victim of the nuisance. Even when the nuisance falls short of a taking of property, a statute purporting to legalize it is construed with mucli strictness. One who justifies under such a statute is bound to show a clear and unmistakable legislative sanction. The remedies available to the victim of a private nuisance are three: abatement; a suit for damages; and an injunction. The first he may enforce with or without process of law. For example, bo may cut off the boughs of over- hanging trees, or pull down a ruinous structure that threatens to fall upon his property. One who thus takes the law into his hands needs to act with groat care, for if he does more than is actually necessary to relieve himself of the nuisance, he becomes a wrongdoer himself. If he brings a suit for damages, he is entitled to nominal damages upon proving the nuisance; and in case he shows he has sustained actual damages, he is entitled to those. If the de- fendant has acted maliciously, he may be com- pelled to pay punitive damages. (See D.MACiES.) The most eflicient remedy, however, is that of injunction (q.v.). Consult: Wood, Law of Xiii- sa}ices (San Francisco, 1893) ; Garrett, Law of ymsuiice» (London, 1897); Pollock, The Law of Torts (ib., 1902). NUKHA, noo-Ka'. . town in the Government of Yclizavotpol, Transcaucasia, situated about 150 miles northwest of Baku (Map: Russia, G 6). It is the centre of a silk-producing district. The town is Oriental in appearance. It was formerly the capital of a khanate, and retains the ruins of an ancient palace. Population, in 1897, 24,811, chiefly native Tatars and Armenians. NULL,, ni.il, Ei)U.RD va.n" der (1812-08). An Austrian architect, born in Vienna. He studied at the Academy, and with his fellow student, August von Siccard.sburg, aimed at the promotion of the Renaissance stvle. Their sojourn in Italy was supplemented liy a study trip to France, England, and (ieniianv, and on their return to Vienna Niill was appointed professor at the Academy. Henceforth associated in the con- struction of various noteworthy edifices, their joint activity reached its brilliant climax in the erection of the splendid Vienna opera house (1861-08^ Before its completion Niill took his life in a fit of iiichnicholia. NULLIFICATION (Lat. nulUficatio, con- tempt, making as nothing, from nuUificnre. to despise, make as nothing, from niilliis, none + facerr, to do. make). In .American history, the formal suspension by a State within its terri- torial jurisdiction of a law of the United States. The right was first asserted in the famous Vir- ginia and Kentucky Resolutions (q.v.) of 1798 and 1799. .Jefferson and JIadison were the spokes- men of Kentucky and 'irginia respectively. In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were adopted bv the Legislature, it was de- clared that the I'liion was a 'compact,' and. as in other cases of compact, each party had a right to judge for itself of infractions and of the mode of redress. The resolutions of 1799 went even fui'thor, and declared that a nullification by the State sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under cover of the Constitution was the rightful remedy in cases of infraction. The Virginia Resolutions did not go so far, but characterized the Union as a 'compact' and called upon the other States to join her in declaring the .lien and Sedition Laws null and void. No further ac- tion was taken for the time by these or other States to put into execution the methods of 're-