{"id":928,"date":"2012-07-20T21:00:52","date_gmt":"2012-07-21T01:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=928"},"modified":"2012-07-20T21:36:32","modified_gmt":"2012-07-21T01:36:32","slug":"armstrong-v-francis-corp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/armstrong-v-francis-corp\/","title":{"rendered":"Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Case Name: <\/strong>Armstrong v. Francis Corp.<br \/>\n<strong>Plaintiff: <\/strong>Armstrongs and Klemps<br \/>\n<strong>Defendant: <\/strong>Francis Corp. (Homebuilder)<br \/>\n<strong>Citation: <\/strong>120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<br \/>\n<strong>Key Facts: <\/strong>The defendant, Francis Corp., built 186 small homes and 14 houses on a tract of land. Francis Corp. constructed the drainage system which emptied into an iron pipe which was below the level of the natural stream bed. The natural drainage of the plaintiffs&#8217; property was affected by this and ruined their percolating stream. The water became discolored, evil smelling, and no longer had any fish in it. The stream built up silt and muck and started to erode the banks of the plaintiffs land.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Procedural History: <\/strong>The lower court stated that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief and that the only sensible and permanent solution is to pipe the rest of the brook at the defendant\u2019s expense.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue: <\/strong>Whether the damage suffered by the plaintiffs is privileged and incidental by the improvement of the defendant\u2019s land and thereby the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rule: <\/strong>Whether the harm caused by the defendant\u2019s improvement is reasonable can be determined by consideration all of the relevant circumstances such as the amount of harm caused, the foreseeability of the harm, the purpose or motive of the defendant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Name: Armstrong v. Francis Corp. Plaintiff: Armstrongs and Klemps Defendant: Francis Corp. (Homebuilder) Citation: 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956) &nbsp; Key Facts: The defendant, Francis Corp., built 186 small homes and 14 houses on a tract of land. Francis Corp. constructed the drainage system which emptied into an iron pipe which was below the &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/armstrong-v-francis-corp\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956)&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[82,3],"tags":[74],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v15.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956). The defendant, Francis Corp., built 186 small homes and 14 houses on a tract of land.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/armstrong-v-francis-corp\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956). The defendant, Francis Corp., built 186 small homes and 14 houses on a tract of land.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/armstrong-v-francis-corp\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-07-21T01:00:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-07-21T01:36:32+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/armstrong-v-francis-corp\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/armstrong-v-francis-corp\/\",\"name\":\"Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-07-21T01:00:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-07-21T01:36:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 120 A.2d 4 (N.J. 1956). The defendant, Francis Corp., built 186 small homes and 14 houses on a tract of land.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/armstrong-v-francis-corp\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/928"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=928"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/928\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":934,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/928\/revisions\/934"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=928"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=928"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=928"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}