Cited by

Cf. Aldrich v. City of Minneapolis, 52 Minn. 164, 168, 53 N.W.

178 (1923); Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , 53 N.W.

As good a statement as any of the distinction between a public and private nuisance and the remedies available as the result of each is found in Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164, 171 , , where, speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, we said: “A nuisance may be at the same time both public and private, public in its general effect upon the public, and private as to those who suffer a special or particular damage therefrom, apart from the common injury.

§ 4045; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164, 172 , ; Johnson v. Bruzek, 142 Minn. 454 , ; Haugen v. Sundseth, 106 Minn. 129 , .

See, Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , .

Hayward v. Knapp, 22 Minn. 5 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , ; Rush v. St.

It is sufficient to cite Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , ; Rush v. St.

Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Co. 29 Minn. 41 , ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Rochette v. C. M. & St.

124 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , 53 N.W.

191333, note at page 763; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164, 172 , .

Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164, 172 , ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , ; Rush v. St.

The case is brought within the rule laid down in Aidrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , .

Paul & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 502 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , .

The court held, distinguishing the case from Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , , that the damage by reason of smoke, cinders, and soot was not special and peculiar to the plaintiff, but was such as all other property owners in that vicinity suffered, whether their lots fronted on the street or not.

In the case of Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , , the court held that to entitle a party to maintain a private action for the obstruction of a public street, it was unnecessary for him to show that he was cut off from all access to his property; that it was the nature of the right affected, and not the number who suffered from the wrongful obstructi

In Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , , the court held that to entitle a party to maintain a private action for obstructing a public street it was not necessary for him to show that he was cut off from all access to his property, and that it was the nature of the right affected and not the number who suffered from the unlawful obstruction

Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , ; Rush v. St.

See also on this general subject, Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 161 , ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , .

Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Woodbury v. City, 52 Minn. 329 , .

The appellant, however, contends that his case is similar to, and *45 ruled by, that of Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , .

As held in Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ( ,) it is not necessary that access to the street be wholly and completely cut off to cause the abutting owner special damage.

Vanderburgh, J. The grounds upon which actions of this character may be sustained were considered in our former decision, reported in 52 Minn. 164 , ( .)

dividual cannot maintain a private action for a public nuisance by reason of any injury which he suffers in common with the public, and that it is only when he sustains special injury differing in kind, not merely in, degree or extent, from that sustained by the general public, that he may recover damages in a private action; and an examination of the opinion recently filed in Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ( 53 N. W. Rep.