Alabama Consol. Coal & Iron Co. v. Vines

• Decision Date: 13 June 1907
• Citation: 151 Ala. 398,44 So. 377
• Parties: ALABAMA CONSOL. COAL & IRON CO. ET AL. v. VINES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

44 So. 377

151 Ala. 398

ALABAMA CONSOL. COAL & IRON CO. ET AL. v. VINES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 13, 1907

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Charles A. Senn, Judge.

Actions by Greenberry Vines against the Alabama Consolidated Coal &amp Iron Company and others. The actions were consolidated and tried together. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Appellee sued appellants separately for damages resulting from the pollution of a stream and the deposits there from coal dust ore washings, and muck deposited upon the lands, together with the loss of crops for the year previous occasioned by these deposits, which deposits are alleged to have been placed in the stream by the different defendants. The facts of the case and the character of the agreement entered into as to the trials of these causes are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The following charges were requested by the plaintiff and given by the court:

"(1) The court charges the jury that, while the defendants have the right to use the stream or tributaries thereof above plaintiff's land for mining purposes, they have no right to place in said stream anything that would be carried down said stream to where it passes plaintiff's land which will materially pollute the same or may materially deteriorate its quality where it passed plaintiff's land.

"(2) The court charges you, gentlemen of the jury, that, while the defendants have the right to use the stream or tributaries thereof above plaintiff's land for mining purposes, they have no right to place in said stream anything that would be carried down said stream to where it passes plaintiff's land which will materially pollute the stream or materially deteriorate the quality of the water where it passes along the land of the plaintiff; and they have no right to place in said stream above the lands of plaintiff any substance that would be carried down said stream and caused to be deposited upon the lands of plaintiff that would injure or deteriorate the lands of plaintiff."

The defendants requested the following charges in writing, which were refused:

"(10) I charge you that, if you believe from the evidence that plaintiff has not planted in any year until after the overflows had subsided from his land, you cannot award the plaintiff as damages any sum representing the value of crops which he failed to grow on account of harmful deposits placed on said land by such overflow, and also award him damages to compensate for the decline in the market value of his lands on account of the said harmful deposits."

"(19) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the law takes into consideration the fact that the use by mining and manufacturing companies of the waters of the streams on which their industries are located in the operation of such industry will of necessity result in some impairment of the quality of such waters, and will result in some inconvenience and injury to the proprietors of the land on such streams below such industries, and that, if you believe from the evidence that the use by defendant of the streams on which their plants are situated has by itself not greatly impaired the quality of the water, you must find for defendant."

"(25) If the jury find from the evidence that none of plaintiff's land received any permanent injury, and if the jury find for the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the amount which the jury find from the evidence would reasonably compensate him for the diminished enjoyment of the occupancy of his lands described in the complaint, and if the jury find there has been any, from the evidence, which he has suffered during the year preceding the commencement of the suit, from such wrongs as the jury find from the evidence were committed by the defendant."

"(30) If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff's land described in the complaint suffered no permanent injury from defendant's acts, and if the jury further believe from the evidence that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, then the plaintiff would only be entitled to recover such amount as would reasonably compensate the plaintiff for such impairment in the enjoyment of his premises described in the complaint as he suffered from defendant's wrong during the year preceding the commencement of the suit."

There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Percy & Benners and Tillman, Grub, Bradley & Morrow, for appellants.

Frank S. White & Sons and George Bondurant, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

The evidence of the plaintiff tended to establish the averments of the complaint--that as a result of the deposits of coal dust and other foreign matter on the land, coming from above, where defendants' washers were located, the land was rendered less productive and the yield of the crops on that account had fallen off. That for defendants tended to show, that there was no appreciable coal dust left on plaintiff's lands, and that there were no deposits of muck thereon, which were not of a character found on other branches of the Little Warrior river, on which no coal washers were located.

The original suits were instituted separately against several defendants, either on the 12th of November, 1903, or on June 7th, 1904; and on the 1st of November, 1905, an amendment by way of substitution of the same for the original complaint was filed. On that day, an agreement was entered into by the plaintiff's counsel, and the counsel for the other defendants, that said suits be consolidated, and tried on October 30th, at which time the case against the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company was set for trial, and the other cases were continued till that date. The case against the Republic Iron & Steel Company was discontinued. The case...