The court below having found that the establishment of an incinerator plant, with the most approved appliances, and its normal operation, including the convergence of wagons bearing garbage, is not a nuisance per se, and there being evidence upon which to base that finding, following our usual rule in cases of alleged nuisances, the decree must be affirmed. If the operation of the plant does, become a nuisance in fact, appellants have their remedy, either by a new proceeding or under the present bill, of which the court below will retain jurisdiction.
The other questions raised have been , passed upon in support of the decree of the court below in
Sheets et al. v. Armstrong et al.,
The erection and operation of the incinerator plant by the City was in its proprietary capacity. See
Gemmill v. Calder et al.,
Decree affirmed at appellants’ cost.