Where the action of a board of health is fraudulent, clearly oppressive or grossly abu sive, equity may intervene and exercise its inherent power to prevent such abuse.
An injunction was granted to restrain the board of health of San Francisco from inoculating the Chinese residents with bubon ic plague serum; Wong Wai v. Williamson, 103 Fed. 1; from removing tenants and clos ing up houses, where it was not justified by the actual existence of a contagious disease; Eddy v. Board of Health, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 94; from using property as a hospital for the care of a person afflicted with leprosy; Bal timore City v. Improvement Co., 87 Md. 352, 39 Atl. 1087, 40 L. R. A. 494, 67 Am. St. Rep. 344; from sending to an unsanitary pest house one who suffered from a form of lep rosy which is very slightly contagious, where quarantine in her own home could be made a complete protection for the public; Kirk v. Board of Health, 83 S. C. 372, 65 S. E. 387, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1188.
It is the duty of a landowner so to keep his property that no menace to the public health shall come therefrom. A city may fill up low-lying lands and recover the cost thereof ; Charleston v. Werner, 38 S. C. 488, 17 S. E. 33, 37 Am. St. Rep. 776; City of Rochester v. Simpson, 134 N. Y. 414, 31 N. E. 871; Nickerson v. Boston, 131 Mass. 306; Bowles v. Aberdeen, 58 Wash. 535, 109 Pac. 369, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 709. The health de partment may prohibit the owner of tene ment buildings unfit for habitation and dan gerous to health from renting them ; Health Dept. v. Dassori, 21 App. Div. 348, 47 N. Y. Supp. 641. A statute requiring the installa tion of water-closets in tenement houses in place of sinks was sustained ; Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 72 N. E. 231, 70 L. R. A. 704, 103 Am. St. Rep. 910, 1 Ann. Cas. 439, affirmed without opin ion in 203 U. S. 583, 27 Sup. Ct. 781, 51 L. Ed. 328. Health authorities may order per sons to abate nuisances created by filthy hog pens; Board of Health of Raritan Tp. v. Homier (N. J.) 41 Atl. 228; and may or der owners of property on streets having sewers to connect therewith ; Harrington v. Board of Aldermen, 20 R. I. 233, 38 Atl. 1, 38 L. R. A. 305.
A state board of health may forbid a mu nicipality to discharge sewage into a stream which is a source of water supply; Miles City v. State Board of Health, 39 Mont. 405, 102 Pac. 696, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 589; the city can have no prescriptive right to pollute such a stream ; Platt v. Waterbury, 72 Conn.
531, 45 Atl. 154, 48 L. R. A. 691, 77 Am. St. Rep. 335; Owens v. City of Lancaster, 182 Pa. 257, 37 Atl. 858; Miles City v. Board of Health, 39 Mont. 405, 102 Pac. 696, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 589.
A city is not bound to make a chemical analysis of the water of free public wells for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is wholesome; Danaher v. City of Brooklyn, 119 N. Y. 241, 23 N. E. 745, 7 L. R. A. 592.
The regulation and maintenance of tene ment lodging and boarding houses is a prop er subject of legislative regulation for the benefit of the public health, but the degree of regulation permissible varies greatly ac cording to circumstances ; Bonnett v. Vallier, 136 Wis. 193, 116 N. W. 885, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 486, 128 Am. St. Rep. 1061. While health authorities have the power to abate nuisanc es, the owner has usually the right to do so in his own way ; Eckhardt v. City of Buffalo, 19 App. Div. 1, 46 N. Y. Supp. 204, affirmed in id., 156 N. Y. 658, 50 N. E. 1116; Philadel phia v. Trust Co., 132 Pa. 224, 18 Atl. 1114 ; Durgin v. Minot, 203 Mass. 26, 89 N. E. 144, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 241, 133 Am. St. Rep. 276. And property not in itself a nuisance may not be destroyed unless such destruction is necessary to protect the public; Shepard v.
People, 40 Mich. 487; Health Dep't of City of New York v. Dassorl, 21 App. Div. 348, 47 N. Y. Supp. 641.
Offences against the provisions of the health laws are generally punished by fine and imprisonment. They are offences against public health, punishable by the common law by fine and imprisonment ; such, for ex ample, as selling unwholesome provisions. 4 Bla. Com. 162; 2 East, PL Cr. 822; 6 id. 133; 3 Maule & S. 10.
Mandamus will issue to compel a board of health to award compensation to one whose property it has occupied or destroyed to prevent the spread of contagious disease. when such board of health has refused so to do ; Safford v. Board of Health, 110 Mich. 81, 67 N. W. 1094, 33 L. R. A. 300, 64 Am. St. Rep. 332.
Injuries to the health of particular indi viduals are, in general, remedied by an ac tion on the case, or perhaps, in some in stances, for breach of contract, and may be also by abatement, in some cases of nuisance. See NUISANCE; ABATEMENT; QUARANTINE; CONTAGIOUS DISEASES; VACCINATION.
As to the exercise of discretionary powers by boards of health, see LEGISLATIVE POWER; POLICE POWER ; FOOD AND DRUG ACTS.