Cited by

While we have held that when a nuisance is established a plaintiff may be entitled to recover damages for property damage and physical suffering, discomfort, and inconvenience resulting from the nuisance, Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , , we nevertheless hold in the instant case that the findings on damages should not be disturbed since the equities were adequately balanced by the trial court and the extent of relief to be granted lies largely in its discretion.

Krueger v. City of Faribault, 220 Minn. 89 , 18 N. W. (2d) 777 ; see, also, Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , .

Lynch v. Shiely, supra; Bowers v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 78 Minn. 398 , , 79 A. S. R. 395; Batcher v. City of Staples, 120 Minn. 86 , ; Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , .

That plaintiff husband and he alone may recover for the injury the members of his family have sustained from the nuisance is settled by Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , , and cases therein cited.

(2 ed. & Supp. 1932) § 4288a; Millett v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 145 Minn. 475 , .

Brede v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Millett v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , .

Brede v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Millett v. Minnesota C. S. Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , ; Roukovina v. Island F. C. Co. 160 Minn. 335 , , 38 A. L. R. 1502.

The complaint in the present case is like the one- considered in Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , , in that it alleges that the premises constitute the homestead of plaintiff and her husband and family, but does not allege that she is the owner thereof.

And see Nienow v. Village of Mapleton, 144 Minn. 60 , ; Joyce v. Village of Janesville, 132 Minn. 121 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 426; Brede v. Minn. C. S. Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Millett v. Minn. C. S. Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , ; Batcher v. City of Staples, 120 Minn. 86 , ; Sloggy v. Dilworth, 38 Minn. 179 , , 8 Am.

1092 ; Millett v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , 177 N.W.

Brede v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , , 6 A. L. R. 1092; Millett v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , ; Id.

The injury stated was held to be to property, within the principle of Millett v. Minn. Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , , and the cause of action survived.

The case of Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , , justifies a recovery for both the items included therein.

We have no doubt that the decree in the former action established, and the complaint in this action alleged, an injury to property within the principles stated in Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , , and cases there cited.

It has *241 furnished the subject matter of litigation in Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374 , ; Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , ; and Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 146 Minn. 406 , , .

This seems to us tc come within the same principle applied in Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 145 Minn. 475 , , .