Tallow  factories  and  melting-houses  have  been  held  nuisances.
Blunt  V.  Hay,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  363 ;  Hansee  v.  Hammond.,  39  Barb.
89;  Cropsey  Y.  Mvrphy,  1  Hilt.  126.  A  tannery  where  offensive
-stenches  are  liberated  is  a  nuisance  Fisher  v.  Clark,  41  Barb.  339  ;
Thomas  v.  Brackney,  17  id.  654;  Francis  v.  Schoellkopf,  53
N.  Y.  152.  So  of  a  soap-boiling  establishment.  Howard  v.  Lee,
3  Sandf.  281.  A  dam  erected  to  such  a  height  as  to  set  back  water
upon  another's  mill  is  a  nuisance.  Rothery  v.  N.  IT.  Rubber  Co.,
.24  Hun,  172,  and  cases  cited.  A  steam  manufacturing  company
adjoining  dwelling-houses  which  jarred  and  injured  them,  held  a
nuisance.  MoKeori  v.  See,  51  N.  Y.  300.  A  structure  whicli,
though  not  hurtful  to  health  or  noxious  to  the  senses,  interferes  with
the  comfortable  enjoyment  (>f  life  or  property,  is  a  nuisance  within
the  rule  that  any  person  who  sustains  a  private  injury  from  the  erec-
tion or  continuance  of  a  nuisance  may  maintain  an  action  therefor.
Trenor  v.  Jackson,  15  Abb.  (N.  S.)  115.  A  dog  in  the  habit  of
coming  on  plaintiff's  premises  and  barking  and  howhng  about  his
dwelling  by  day  and  night  to  the  great  annoyance  of  his  family  is
a  nuisance.  Brill  v.  Flagler,  23  Wend.  354.  The  rule  is,  that  if
one  carry  on  a  lawful  business  in  such  a  way  as  to  prove  a  nuisance  to
his  neighbor  he  is  answerable  in  damages.  Fish  v.  Bodge,  4  Den.
