Kasper v. H. P. Hood & Sons

QUA, Justice. The question at issue is whether the defendant's milk distributing plant on Pleasant street in Watertown, as carried on by the defendant, is a nuisance from which the plaintiff is entitled to relief in equity. The master has found that 'So much of the plaintiff's [defendant's] business as consists of loading milk on wagons and trucks between 1:00 A. M. and 5:00 A. M. is a nuisance.' This is an ultimate Conclusion which embraces not only those findings of fact which must of necessity enter into the decision of such an issue, but also a ruling as to what facts are sufficient in law to constitute a nuisance under the circumstances disclosed. The evidence is not reported, and the master does not state that his Conclusion is based solely upon the subsidiary facts found. It follows that the trial Judge was bound by the master's Conclusion, and, on appeal, we are bound by it, unless the subsidiary findings included in the report are sufficient in themselves to demonstrate that the Conclusion must be unsound in law. Morrell v. Kelley, 157 Mass. 126, 31 N.E. 755; Simpkins v. Old Colony Trust Co., 254 Mass. 576, 580, 151 N.E. 87; Arcisz v. Pietrowski, 268 Mass. 140, 146, 167 N.E. 298; MacLeod v. Davis (Mass.) 195 N.E. 315. The precise question then is whether the master's findings of particular facts show that the defendant's plant is not a nuisance.