New version page

CORNELL ECON 4040 - Spur vs Webb/Ploof vs Putnam

Type: Lecture Note
Pages: 2

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

View Full Document
View Full Document

End of preview. Want to read all 2 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a GradeBuddy member to access this document.

View Full Document
Unformatted text preview:

Econ 4040 1st Edition Lecture 7Outline of Last Lecture I. Trump TowerII. Prah vs MaretOutline of Current Lecture III. Spur vs WebbIV. Ploof vs PutnamCurrent LectureSpur vs Webb: Developer sued to permanently enjoin a cattle feedlot operation that was in close proximity to a residential development it was creating. The feedlot owner counterclaimed for indemnification from the developer if it was enjoined from operation.Synopsis of rule of law: In the proper circumstances, an owner of a lawful business that is enjoined from operating because his business is found to be a nuisance can seek indemnification from the individual successful in claiming the nuisanceFacts. Farming started in the area at issue as early as 1911. Later, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built. The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. The Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co. (Plaintiff), began development of an urban area near the feedlots. Plaintiff filed a complaint in 1967 stating that the approximately 1,300 lots were unfit for residential development because of the feedlots proximity to the lots, therefore the feedlots constituted a public nuisance. The trial court permanently enjoined the defendant from operating the feedlots.Issue. Two issues were examined on appeal:Where a business is being operated in a lawful manner, may the operation be enjoined as a nuisance?If the operation is enjoined as a nuisance, may the developer who requested the enjoinment be required to indemnify the business owner.Ploof vs PutnamFact Summary: To escape a storm: Ploof tied his boat to Putnam’s defendant’s dock. Defendant untied plaintiff’s boat. Plaintiff and his family were injured and the boat was destroyed. These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.Synopsis of Rule of Law. Necessity will justify entries upon land and interferences with personal property that would otherwise have been trespass.Facts. Defendant owned a dock. Defendant’s servant was in charge of the dock when Plaintiff and his family were sailing. A storm arose and Plaintiff was forced to tie his boat to Defendant’s dock. Defendant’s servant untied Plaintiff’s boat. Plaintiff and his family were injured and the boat was destroyed. Plaintiff sued in trespass, claiming that it was Defendant’s servant’s duty to allow Plaintiff to tie his boat to Defendant’s dock. The trial court ruled for Plaintiff. Defendant appealed.Issue. Is Defendant permitted to untie Plaintiff’s boat when Plaintiff tied his boat to Defendant’s dock out of necessity?Allowing trespass for financial gains. If the boat is valued for $50 and the use of the dock is charged forat $100, then a more efficient outcome could


View Full Document
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Spur vs Webb/Ploof vs Putnam and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Spur vs Webb/Ploof vs Putnam and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?