112 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

What acts of the creditor will discharge a surety.

If all the creditor's remedies be expressly reserved, the surety will not be
discharged by any act of the creditor.

neighbors and the value of the property, the continuance of the nuisance
will be enjoined. Adams v. Michael, 38 Md. 123. In this case it was held
that the allegations of the bill that certain consequences would follow from
a threatened nuisance were not sufficiently specific to justify the granting
of the injunction. In Chappell v. Funk, 57 Md. 465, the averments in the
bill respecting the injury and nuisance caused by the manufacture of vitriol
and sulphuric acid upon premises adjoining those of the plaintiff were held
to be sufficient to warrant the granting of an injunction.

The remedy in equity to prevent a nuisance exists whenever the nature of
the injury is such that it cannot be adequately compensated by damages, or will
occasion a constantly recurring grievance. Especially is an injunction the
only effectual remedy when the injury is caused by so many that it would
be difficult to apportion the damage, and so damages would probably be but
nominal, and repeated actions, without any substantial benefit, the result.
Woodyear v. Schaeffer, 57 Md. 1. Where the nuisance operates to destroy
health or impair the comfortable enjoyment of property, an action at law
furnishes no adequate remedy. Ibid. Slaughter houses are prima facie
nuisances. Ibid. In this case an injunction was granted on the application
of the owner of a flour mill, which had been established for more than
twenty years, restraining ore of several owners of slaughter houses on the
stream above the mill from letting flow down, blood, offal and other offen-
sive matter, which passed into the mill race. See, on this subject generally,
Penn. Co. v. Sanderson. 94 Pa. St. 402; Canfield v. Andrew. 54 Vt. 1; Robin-
son v. Black, 57 Cal. 413; Primer v. Pendleton. 75 Va. 516: Lockwood Co. v.
Lawrence, 1 Eastern Rep. 403, and post as to riparian rights.

In the case of a public nuisance an injunction will not be granted unless
the plaintiff can show that he has suffered some special damage, different in
kind and degree from that suffered by other citizens, or that he is likely to
suffer some irreparable injury. Schall v. Nusbaum, 56 Md. 513. If a public
nuisance causes a substantial injury to a party's property, or the enjoyment
thereof, he may apply for an injunction. Hamilton v. Whitridge, 11 Md.
129. In this case the maintaining of a bawdy house was restrained. See
Del. R. R. Co. v. Stump. 8 G. & J. 479, note, (b). As to what constitutes a
public nuisance and when the same is the subject of an indictment, see
Horner v. State. 49 Md. 277.

4. Easements. Where easements are annexed by grant or covenant, or
otherwise, to private estates, the due enjoyment of them will be protected
against encroachments by injunction. Thruston v. Minke, 32 Md. 497. In
this case it was held that an action at law would not afford adequate com-
pensation for the injury done by the violation of a condition in a lease in
obstructing the light and ventilation of the third story of a hotel, and that
the lessor was entitled to an injunction. In Glenn v. Davis, 35 Md. 208, the
bill for an injunction against the disturbance of an old wall was dismissed
because the easement in the same had been extinguished.

When a party builds a house on the line of his lot with eaves projecting
over the adjoining lot, so as to throw thereon the water from the roof, it is a
manifest encroachment and twenty years acquiescence therein by the owner
of the adjacent lot is sufficient for the presumption of a grant so to use it.
Cherry v. Stein, 11 Md. 1. But an injunction to prevent the obstruction of
such a right will not be granted unless it clearly appears that such obstruc-