356 impounding; injuries on highways, etc. 



the fact that the plaintiff might have abated the nuisance and 

 did not do so, will not prevent his recovering and will not 

 necessarily mitigate the damages.-"*" If A. wrongfully neg- 

 lects to bury the carcass of his ox found on B.'s land, the 

 latter may bury it without saving the hide. If he saves and 

 sells it, the proceeds are to be disposed of on equitable prin- 

 ciples, but not in an action of tort brought by A.^*^ 



It is indictable to throw into a well the carcass of an animal, 

 tainting and corrupting the water used by a family.-*- So, 

 the maintenance of stables and hog-pens directly upon the 

 banks of a non-navigable stream, polluting the waters which 

 are used by many persons, is a nuisance. ^*^ And the "pen- 

 ning" or "corralling" of sheep over a stream to be a statutory 

 misdemeanor, need not necessarily be done by an artificial 

 structure, but may be done by means of men and dogs, either 

 alone or with natural or artificial barriers.^** 



A piggery in which swine are kept in such numbers that 

 their natural odors fill the air and make the occupation of the 

 neighboring houses and the passage over the adjacent high- 

 ways disagreeable, is a nuisance. ^^^ But it was held error 

 for the court to charge that if the smell of the defendant's pig- 



="Jarvis v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 26 Mo. App. 253. And see 

 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bolton (Ky.), 38 S. W. Rep. 498. 



=" Morse z: Boston & L. R. Co., 66 N. H. 148. 



'" State V. Buckman, 8 N. H. 203. And see Peo. v. Truckee Lumber 

 Co., 116 Cal. 397. 



One whose spring is tainted by the burial of a carcass near it may re- 

 cover the damages sustained, not merely the cost of removing the 

 nuisance: Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Simpson (Ky.), 33 S. W. Rep. 395. 



'" Peo., Ricks Water Co. v. Elk River M. & L. Co., 107 Cal. 214. 



'" Peo. V. Borda, 105 Cal. 636. 



'" Com. V. Perry, 139 Mass. 198. And see Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Simon, 

 40 Ind. 278; Whipple V. Mclntyre, 69 Mo. App. 397; St. Louis v. Stern, 

 3 id. 48; Babcock v. N. J. Stock Yard Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 296- Board of 

 Health of Raritan Tp. v. Henzler (N. J. Ch.), 41 Atl. Rep. 228; Com. v. 

 Van Sickle, Bright. (Pa.) 69; Banbury Urban Sanitary Auth v Pa^-e 

 8 Q. B. D. 97. ■ 



And it is no defence that the pens are as clean as they could be under the 

 circumstances: Burlington v. Stockwell, 5 Kan. App. 569. As to an in- 



