or services imposed by lords upon their interior tenants. Paroch. Antlq. 495.
Nlidn. pnctiu obligationem non par.-it. A naked agreement [i. 5., without consideration] does not beget an oh1ig'-MOD. Dig- 2. 14, 7, 4: Broom, Max. 746.
Mere sut-
NUDA PATIENTIA. Lat.
ferance.
NUDA POSSESSIO. possession.
Lat. Bare or mere
Nada ratio at nuda pactio non ligant aliquem debitox-em. Naked reason and naked promise do not bind any debtor. Fieta, l. 2, c. 60, E 26.
NUDE. Naked. This word is applied
metaphorically to a variety of suiijects to lndicate that they are lacking in some essential legal requisite. —Nnde contract. One made without any consideration; upon which no action will lie. in conformity with the maxim "em muio pnoto mm mitivr actio." 2 Bl. Comm. 445.—Nude matter. A hare allegation of a thing done, unsupported by evidence.
NUDUM PAGTUM. Lat. A naked pact: a bare agreement; a promise or undertaklng made without any consideration for it. Justice v. Lang, 42 N. Y. 403. 1 Am. Rep. 576; Wardeli v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50, 28 N. W. 800, 4 Am. St. Rep. 814.
Nridnm pactnm est uh]. nulls. subest cansa praeter conventinnem; sed ubi Inhest causa, fit ubligntio, et par-it actionein. A naked contract is where there is no consideration except the agreement: but. where there is a consideration, it becomes an obligation and gives a right of action. Plowd. 309; Broom. Max. 745, 750.
Nndnm pactum ex qua non oritur notio. Nudum jmctuvn is that upon which no action arises. Cod. 2, S, 10; Id. 5, 14. 1; Broom. Max. 676.
NUEVA R1-ICOPILACION. (New Compiiation.) The title of a code of Spanish law. promulgated in the year 1567. Schm. Civil Law, Iutrod. 79-81.
NUGATORY. Futile; ineffectual; in- valid; destitute ct constraining force or vitality. A legislative act may be "nugatory" because unconstitutional.
NUISANCIJ. worlsetb hurt. inconvenience, or damage. Bl. Comm. 216.
That class of wrongs that arise from the unreasonable, unwarrantabie, or unlawful use by a person of his own property, either real or personal, or from his own improper,
Anything that unlawfully indecent, or unlawful personal couduct.wnrking an obstruction of or injury to the right of another or of the public, and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt that the law will presume a consequent damage. Wood, Nuls. 9 1. Anything which is injurious to health, or is iudece_nt or oifensive to the senses, or an ob- struction to the free use of property, so as to interfere vfith the comfortabie enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake or river, bay, stream, canal, or ‘basin, or any public park,_ square, street.
or highway, is a niusancc. iv. Code Cal. 5 3479. And see Vcazie v. Dwinel, 50 Me. 479; . 11 Abb. N.
People v. Metropolitan Tel. Co, . . ort Jervis G-aisgigbt . A
Co., 122 N. Y. 18. 25 N. E. 246, 9 L. .
711; Baltimore & I’. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church. I37 U. S. 568, 11 Sup Ct. l8o.
34 _Etl.7 ;Id..10S U. .. , .
Ct. 719, 27 L. Ed. 73 Cai ‘ederick. 46 Ohio St. 44 N. . , G
v. Hulelt, G2 Vt. 341 19 All. 230. Ex parte Foote. 70 Ark. 12, 65 S. W. 706, 91 Am. St. Rep. 6%; Carthage v. Munseli, 203 ill. 474.
6 . D. 1: Northern Pat‘. Ii. (‘n. v. " halcn,
149 U. S. 157, 13 Su . Ct. 322, 37 L. Ed.
E86: Phinizy v. City ouncil of Augusm. 47 a. '
266, Allen v. Union Oil Co., 59 S. C. 571, . 2'74
Classification. Nuisances are commonly classed as public and privutl’. to which is sometimes added a third class called mixed. A pub- lic nuisance is one which afiects an indefinite number of persons, or all the residents of a particular locality, or all people coming within the extent of its range or operation. although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may he unequal; and hence. though only a few persons may be actually injured or annoyed at any given time. it is none the less a public nuisance if of such a character that it must or will injure or an noy all that portion of the general public which may he compelled to come into contact with it, or within the range of its influence. See Buru- hain v. rlotchkiss, 14 Conn. 317: Cliesbrough v. 'Com'rs. 37 Ohio St. 508; Lansing v. Smith.
"fend. (V. Y
t .
Kelley v. New Y . Y. Sum’). 1G4; Kissel v. Levus, 156 Ind. 233, 59 N’. E. 478; Buriington v. Stoclnvell, 5 Kan. App. 569, 47 Psc. 989; Jones v. Chanute. 63 Kan. 243. 65 Pac. 243; Civ. Code Cal. 9 3480. A private nuisance was originally defined as anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditameuts of another. 3 Bl. Comm. 216. But the modern definition includes any wrongful act which destroys or deteriorates the property of another or interferes with his lawful use or enjoyment thereof, or any act which unlawfully hinders him in the enjoyment of a common or public right and causes him a special injury. Therefore, aithough the ground of distinction between pub- iic and private nuisances is stiii the injury to the community at large or. on the other hand, to a single iutlividual, it is evident that the same thing or act may constitute a public nui- sance and at the same time a private nuisance, being the latter as to any person who sustains from it, in his person or property, a special injury differeut from that of the g-neral pub- iic. See Bee: v. Licht. 80 N. Y. 582, 36 Am. Rep. 654; Baltzcger v. Caroiina Midland R. Co., 54 S. O. 242. 32 S. E. 358 71 Am. St. Rep. 789; Kavanagh v. Barber .531 N. Y. 211.
235 15 L R A.
30 N. E. . . . G '
Steblin, 137 Ind. 43, 35 N. E. 997, 22 L. R. A. 577: Dnrinan v. Ames. 12 \Iinu. 461 (Gil. 341),‘ Ackerman 7. True. 175 N. Y. 353, 67 N. E
