Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Baltimore v. Fairfield Improv. Co. 87 Md. 360, 40 L.R.A. 494, 67 Am. St. Rep. 344, 39 Atl. 1081; Taylor v. Baltimore, 130 Md. 139, L.R.A. 1917C, 1046, 99 Atl. 900; and Block v. Baltimore, supra. But there is no occasion to determine whether it applies in the present case, because, as we have seen, the city of Baltimore has not been shown to have sufficient interest in the sewer to require its being made a party to this suit, and hence there is no municipality involved in the case. As what we have already said shows clearly that no error was committed by the learned court below in overruling the demurrer to the bill of complaint, we will not further discuss that question.

It was strongly urged by the learned counsel for the appellee, both in the oral argument and in his brief, that the granting of an injunction in this case will work a very great hardship on the appellee and the owners of the houses now connected with the sewer, and that the resulting conditions will seriously menace the health of the occupants and those living in the vicinity of the houses. Both of these contentions may be true, though there is testimony in the record from which

Injunction

issuance.

How

it would be reasonable to conclude that most, if not all, the damage caused the appellant by this sewer could be remedied by providing, at some expense of course, additional means of treating the sewage before it is allowed to enter the run. But even though there was no remedy, these contentions, in the present case, would not prevent the issuing of effect of hardan injunction if ship from the conditions complained of are not changed. ever, as the sudden closing of this sewer system would create a very serious situation, and as there may be some way in which damage to the appellant can be avoided without closing the sewer, we will remand the case, with instructions to issue an injunction in accordance with this opinion, unless, within such reasonable time as the lower court may deem proper, the appellee changes its sewerage system in such a way as to avoid its injuring the appellant.

Decree reversed, with costs, and cause remanded to the end that an injunction may be issued in accordance with this opinion.

Bond, Ch. J., and Parke, J., dissenting.

ANNOTATION.

Injunction against pollution of stream by private persons or corporations. [Injunction, § 84.]

I. Scope and introduction, 9.

II. In general, 9.

III. Particular considerations:

a. Continuance of injury indicated by that already suffered, 17.

b. Injury merely threatened, 18.

c. Purpose for which stream used:

1. By plaintiff, 22.

2. By defendant, 24.

d. Substantial character of injury; sufficiency of complaint and proof, 28.

e. Distance, size of stream, etc., 30.

IV. Contractual and statutory provisions, 32.

V. Extent of relief, 35.

VI. Special defenses:

a. Necessity of prior adjudication at law of existence of nuisance, 37.

VI.-continued.

b. Other remedy available:

1. At common law, 38.

2. Under statute, 40.

c. Actual damage not shown; plaintiff's nonuser, 41.

d. Denial of plaintiff's right, 43.

e. Defendant's due care, 44.

f. Pollution by plaintiff, 45.

g. Other sources of pollution, 46.

h. Plaintiff's duty to purify, 51.

i. Cessation of pollution; defendant's efforts to abate, 52.

j. Pollution expressly authorized, 54.

k. Necessity of defendant's use, 56.

1. Plaintiff's injury small, as compared with defendant's if enjoined ("comparative injury" doctrine), 60.

m. Laches, 65.

n. Estoppel, 67.

o. Prescriptive right to pollute; "lost grant," 69.

p. Stream artificial, 75.

q. Parties; joinder, 75. r. Miscellaneous, 78.

I. Scope and introduction. The right of a riparian owner to have the water of a stream come to him in its natural purity, or in the condition in which he has been in the habit of using it for the purposes of his domestic use or of his business, is as well recognized as the right to have it flow on his land in the usual quantity. 27 R. C. L. 1212.

The present annotation, however, as its title indicates, is concerned. with the remedy by injunction for the vindication and protection of one's right against the pollution of a stream by private persons or corporations; and the references to matters that go to the existence or extent of the rights of the parties in this respect are merely incidental or illustrative, and do not purport to be exhaustive of the questions of substantive law to which they relate.

Various phases of the substantive law as to pollution of streams have been treated in other annotations. Thus, pollution by mining operations is treated in the annotation in 39 A.L.R. 891 [Waters, § 124]; pollution by waste from oil wells, in the annotation in 34 A.L.R. 263 [Waters, § 124]; and pollution of oyster beds, in the annotation in 3 A.L.R. 762 [Fisheries, § 20].

As the annotation is confined to pol

lution by private persons or corporations, it is not concerned with questions as to the effect upon the remedy by injunction, of the public interests which are involved when the defendant is a public body, like a municipal corporation.

II. In general.

The pollution of a stream by a private individual or corporation has been frequently enjoined where a material and irreparable injury will result from its further continuance, or the right to unpolluted water has been substantially interfered with or threatened, the courts generally taking the view that in such cases a nuisance exists, or will exist unless an injunction be granted.

United States.-Indianapolis Water Co. v. American Strawboard Co. (1893; C. C.) 57 Fed. 1000, affirming (1893; C. C.) 53 Fed. 970 (manufacturer enjoined from depositing foreign substance in river) motion for suspension of injunction pending appeal overruled in (1894) 46 U. S. App. 526, 26 C. C. A. 470, 81 Fed. 423; Mann v. Des Moines Water Co. (1913) 121 C. C. A. 220, 202 Fed. 862 (threatened removal of sand filter enjoined). And see West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Cheat Mountain Club (1914) 129 C. C. A. 49, 212 Fed. 373, affirming (1913;

D. C.) 205 Fed. 195 (location of lumber camp enjoined). But see Tuttle v. Church (1892; C. C.) 53 Fed. 422 (alleged pollution from fish works, injunction denied) appeal dismissed in (1894) 6 C. C. A. 685, 5 U. S. App. 671 and Sussex Land & Live Stock Co. v. Midwest Ref. Co. (1923; C. C. A. 8th) 34 A.L.R. 249, 294 Fed. 597, affirming (1922; D. C.) 276 Fed. 932 (denied for discharge of oil).

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

California. Bowen V. Wendt (1894) 103 Cal. 236, 37 Pac. 149 (pollution from slaughterhouse enjoined); People ex rel. Ricks Water Co. v. Elk River Mill & Lumber Co. (1895) 107 Cal. 214, 48 Am. St. Rep. 125, 40 Pac. 486 (from hogpen and manure pile enjoined); People v. Truckee Lumber Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 397, 39 L.R.A. 581, 58 Am. St. Rep. 183, 48 Pac. 374 (from sawdust and other substances enjoined). And see Glassell v. Verdugo (1895) 108 Cal. 503, 41 Pac. 403 (as to joinder of defendants). But see Spring Valley Waterworks v. Fifield (1902) 136 Cal. 14, 68 Pac. 108 (decree against dairymen denied); and Fisher v. Feige (1902) 137 Cal. 39, 59 L.R.A. 333, 92 Am. St. Rep. 77, 69 Pac. 618 (alleged pollution from felling of trees).

Colorado. See contra, Cushman v. Highland Ditch Co. (1893) 3 Colo. App. 437, 33 Pac. 344 (decree refused for threatened pollution from alkali water).

[blocks in formation]

Delaware. Jessup & M. Paper Co. v. Ford (1887) 6 Del. Ch. 52, 33 Atl. 618 (pollution by manufacturer enjoined).

Georgia.-Horton v. Fulton (1908) 130 Ga. 466, 60 S. E. 1059 (by sawmill operator enjoined); Manning v. Webb (1911) 136 Ga. 881, 72 S. E. 401 (discharge of sewage enjoined).

Idaho. See contra, Bellevue v. Daly (1908) 14 Idaho, 545, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.). 992, 125 Am. St. Rep. 179, 94 Pac. 1036, 14 Ann. Cas. 1136 (as to defendant's right to have cattle wade through ditch).

Illinois.-Barrett v. Mt. Greenwood Cemetery Asso. (1896) 159 Ill. 385, 31 L.R.A. 109, 50 Am. St. Rep. 168, 42 N. E. 891, reversing (1895) 57 Ill. App. 401 (proposed underdraining of cemetery enjoined); Sutton v. Findlay Cemetery Asso. (1915) 270 Ill. 11, L.R.A.1916B, 1135, 110 N. E. 315, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 559, reversing (1914) 190 Ill. App. 455 (underdraining enjoined after work started).

Indiana.-Weston Paper Co. v. Pope (1900) 155 Ind. 394, 56 L.R.A. 899, 57 N. E. 719 (pollution by manufacturer enjoined). But see Barnard v. Sherley (1893) 135 Ind. 547, 568, 24 L.R.A. 568, 575, 41 Am. St. Rep. 454, 34 N. E. 600, 35 N. E. 117 (injunction refused as to artesian well in which people bathed).

Iowa.-See contra, Bennett v. National Starch Mfg. Co. (1897) 103 Iowa, 207, 72 N. W. 507 (decree denied, pollution ended); Perry v. Howe Co-op. Creamery Co. (1904) 125 Iowa, 415, 101 N. W. 150 (creamery nuisance already abated); Spence V. McDonough (1899) 77 Iowa, 460, 42 N. W. 371 (decree not warranted on pleading).

Maine.-Lockwood Co. v. Lawrence (1885) 77 Me. 297, 52 Am. Rep. 763 (pollution from sawdust, etc., enjoined).

Maryland. Woodyear v. Schaefer (1881) 57 Md. 1, 40 Am. Rep. 419 (slaughterhouse pollution enjoined); Baltimore v. Warren Mfg. Co. (1882) 59 Md. 96 (manufacturer enjoined as to pollution from hogpens); West Arlington Improv. Co. v. Mt. Hope Retreat (1903) 97 Md. 191, 54 Atl. 982

1060 (changing course of river which contained sewage enjoined); Fischer v. Missouri P. R. Co. (1909) 135 Mo. App. 37, 115 S. W. 477 (pollution from oil and refuse enjoined). But see State ex rel. Wear v. Springfield Gas & E. Co. (1918) Mo. App. 204 S. W. 942 (alleged pollution from gas works not proved).

(pollution from sewage enjoined); (1907) 126 Mo. App. 206, 102 S. W. Neubauer V. Overlea Realty Co. (1923) 142 Md. 87, 120 Atl. 69 (sewage enjoined); CARETTI v. BRORING BLDG. Co. (reported herewith) ante, 1) (sewage enjoined). And see Fahnestock v. Feldner (1904) 98 Md. 335, 56 Atl. 785 (as to defense that plaintiff had polluted stream). But see Helfrich v. Catonsville Water Co. (1891) 74 Md. 269, 13 L.R.A. 117, 28 Am. St. Rep. 245, 22 Atl. 72 (as to landowner's right to let cows use stream in ordinary way).

Massachusetts.-Merrifield v. Lombard (1866) 13 Allen, 16, 90 Am. Dec. 172 (pollution by manufacturer enjoined); Harris v. Mackintosh (1882) 133 Mass. 228 (threatened pollution by manufacturer); Martin v. Gleason (1885) 139 Mass. 183, 29 N. E. 664 (hotel proprietor's discharge of sewage enjoined); Parker v. American Woolen Co. (1907) 195 Mass. 591, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 584, 81 N. E. 468 (manufacturer enjoined); MacNamara v. Taft (1908) 196 Mass. 597, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1044, 83 N. E. 310 (manufacturer enjoined). But see Ingraham v. Dunnell (1842) 5 Met. 118 (injunction against bleachery denied, damages adequate); Brookline v. Mackintosh (1882) 133 Mass. 215 (alleged threatened pollution not enjoined); Rockport v. Elwell (1914) 219 Mass. 287, 106 N. E. 994 (alleged pollution from glue factory).

Michigan.-Battle Creek v. Goguac Resort Asso. (1914) 181 Mich. 241, 148 N. W. 441 (pollution from bathing at beach resort enjoined, equally divided court); Paterson v. Dust (1916) 190 Mich. 679, 157 N. W. 353 (houseboats enjoined from anchoring near beach). But see Klein v. Power (1920) 212 Mich. 701, 180 N. W. 383 (alleged pollution through toilet, none in house).

Minnesota. Red River Roller Mills v. Wright (1883) 30 Minn. 249, 44 Am. Rep. 194, 15 N. W. 167 (pollution from sawdust enjoined).

Missouri. Schumacher v. Shawhan (1902) 93 Mo. App. 573, 67 S. W. 717 (discharge of offal from distillery enjoined); Desberger V. University Heights Realty & Development Co.

[ocr errors]

Nebraska.-Barton v. Union Cattle Co. (1889) 28 Neb. 350, 7 L.R.A. 457, 26 Am. St. Rep. 340, 44 N. W. 454 (pollution from cattle enjoined).

New Jersey.-Holsman v. Boiling Spring Bleaching Co. (1862) 14 N. J. Eq. 335 (pollution from bleachery enjoined); Atty. Gen. v. Steward (1869) 20 N. J. Eq. 415, injunction made perpetual in (1871) 21 N. J. Eq. 340 (proposed pollution from slaughterhouse enjoined); State ex rel. Board of Health v. Hutchinson (1884) 39 N. J. Eq. 218, affirmed in (1885) 39 N. J. Eq. 569 (hotel sewage enjoined); State ex rel. Board of Health v. Diamond Mills Paper Co. (1902) 63 N. J. Eq. 111, 51 Atl. 1019, affirmed on opinion below in (1902) 64 N. J. Eq. 793, 53 Atl. 1125 (manufacturer joined); State ex rel. Board of Health v. Ihnken (1907) 72 N. J. Eq. 865, 67 Atl. 28 (plaintiff entitled to enjoin pollution from creamery); Worthen. & Aldrich v. White Spring Paper Co. (1908) 74 N. J. Eq. 647, 70 Atl. 468, affirmed on opinion below in (1909) 75 N. J. Eq. 624, 78 Atl. 1135 (paper manufacturer enjoined); State ex rel. Health Dept. v. Chemical Co. of America (1919) 90 N. J. Eq. 425, 107 Atl. 164 (manufacturer enjoined).

en

New York.-Davis v. Lambertson (1868) 56 Barb. 480 (pollution from hogpens and whey enjoined); Seaman v. Lee (1877) 10 Hun, 607 (house refuse enjoined); Snow v. Williams (1879) 16 Hun, 468 (surplus whey enjoined); Board of Health v. Copcutt (1893) 140 N. Y. 12, 23 L.R.A. 485, 35 N. E. 443, affirming (1893) 71 Hun, 149, 24 N. Y. Supp. 625 (pollution from damming enjoined); Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co. (1900) 164 N. Y. 303, 51 L.R.A. 687, 79 Am. St. Rep. 643, 58 N. E. 142, 21 Mor. Min. Rep. 38, reversing (1897) 24 App. Div. 626, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1144,

reargument denied in (1900) 165 N. Y. 617, 59 N. E. 1131 (pollution from salt works enjoined); Mann v. Willey (1901) 168 N. Y. 664, 61 N. E. 1131, affirming without opinion (1900) 51 App. Div. 169, 64 N. Y. Supp. 589 (sewage enjoined); Warren v. Parkhurst (1906) 186 N. Y. 45, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1149, 78 N. E. 579, 9 Ann. Cas. 512, affirming (1905) 105 App. Div. 239, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1009 (tanners and manufacturers enjoined); Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co. (1913) 208 N. Y. 1, 101 N. E. 805, reversing (1911) 145 App. Div. 1, 129 N. Y. Supp. 391 (manufacturer enjoined); New York v. Blum (1913) 208 N. Y. 237, 101 N. E. 869, affirming (1912) 151 App. Div. 923, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1104, which modified (1911) 72 Misc. 243, 131 N. Y. Supp. 87 (pollution from duck pond. enjoined); Storm King Paper Co. v. Firth Carpet Co. (1918) 184 App. Div. 514, 172 N. Y. Supp. 33 (threatened pollution by manufacturer, modified injunction). But see Townsend v. Bell (1901) 167 N. Y. 462, 60 N. E. 757, reversing (1899) 42 App. Div. 409, 59 N. Y. Supp. 203, which followed (1891) 62 Hun, 306, 17 N. Y. Supp. 210 (alleged pollution not traced to manufacturer); Driscoll v. American Hide & Leather Co. (1918) 102 Misc. 612, 170 N. Y. Supp. 21, affirmed upon defendant's appeal from award of damages (1918) 184 App. Div. 916, 170 N. Y. Supp. 1076 (pollution already abated, decree denied).

North Carolina.-Durham v. Eno Cotton Mills (1906) 141 N. C. 615, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 321, 54 S. E. 453, modified in (1907) 144 N. C. 705, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1163, 57 S. E. 465 (pollution from distant mill enjoined (under statute). And see Atty. Gen. v. Blount (1826) 11 N. C. (4 Hawks) 384, 15 Am. Dec. 526 (dam enjoined, as menace to health); Atty. Gen. ex rel. Raleigh v. Hunter (1826) 16 N. C. (1 Dev. Eq.) 12 (dam enjoined, enjoined, health impaired).

Ohio. See contra, Kemper v. Widows' Home (1881) 6 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 1049 (right to enjoin sewage lost, waiver); Salem Iron Co. v. Hyland (1906) 74 Ohio St. 160, 77 N. E.

751 (pollution from salt water, decree denied, adequate remedy at law).

Pennsylvania. — McCallum v. Germantown Water Co. (1867) 54 Pa. 40, 93 Am. Dec. 656 (manufacturer enjoined); Com. ex rel. McCormick v. Russell (1896) 172 Pa. 506, 37 W. N. C. 404, 33 Atl. 709 (state property joined as plaintiff); Com. v. Kennedy (1913) 240 Pa. 214, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 673, 87 Atl. 605 (pollution enjoined; statute); New Castle City v. Raney (1888) 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 87 (construction of dam enjoined); Rarick v. Smith (1896) 17 Pa. Co. Ct. 627, 5 Pa. Dist. Ct. 530 (threatened pollution from dynamite manufacture enjoined); Bennis v. Free Hospital for Poor Consumptives (1914) 23 Pa. Dist. R. 971 (hospital sewage enjoined); Wanamaker v. Bushnell (1913) 22 Pa. Dist. R. 926 (sewage enjoined); Wanamaker v. Benzon (1916) 63 Pa. Super. Ct. 401 (sewage enjoined). But see Warren v. Hunter (1853) 11 Phila. 414 (injunction denied, laches, etc.); Benscoter v. Huntington Valley Camp Meeting Asso. (1900) 10 Kulp. 355 (pollution stopped); Sloan v. James (1900) 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 399, 7 Del. Co. Rep. 594 (pollution stopped); Norristown Woolen Co. v. Taubel (1901) 28 Pa. Co. Ct. 194 (damage not shown).

Rhode Island.-Richmond Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic De Laine Co. (1871) 10 R. I. 106, 14 Am. Rep. 658 (manufacturer enjoined); Silver Spring Bleaching & Dyeing Co. v. Wanskuck Co. (1882) 13 R. I. 611 (manufacturer enjoined). And see Bradley v. Warner (1898) 21 R. I. 36, 41 Atl. 564 (pollution apparently from privy and sink drain pipe enjoined).

[blocks in formation]
« PředchozíPokračovat »