Amelia Milling Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co.

• Citation: 123 F. 811
• Decision Date: 13 May 1903
• Docket Number: 11.
• Parties: AMELIA MILLING CO. v. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

123 F. 811

AMELIA MILLING CO. v. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO.

No. 11.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Georgia.

May 13, 1903

J. W. &amp P. F. Aiken, for complainant.

Walker Percy and J. M. Neil, for defendant.

PARDEE Circuit Judge.

This bill was filed in the superior court of Bartow county, state of Georgia, and was removed to this court on a sworn petition showing diverse citizenship, and that the matters in dispute in said bill exceed in value the sum of $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and, further, that the rights and privileges of the defendant, of which the said plaintiff by said bill seeks to deprive the defendant, specifically setting forth the same, are of the value of not less than $5,000. In this court the complainant moves to remand because the amount involved is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. The bill was brought to restrain sundry alleged nuisances, and for damages.

It appears that the complainant is engaged in the milling business, and, in connection with its mill, owns and operates a spur railroad track; and that in the mill, railroad track and business many thousands of dollars have been invested. The defendant owns and operates on its own and leased lands brown-ore mines, and in its business uses blast furnaces pumping stations, pipe lines, reservoirs, and mud dams, all connected and used in the matter of mining, and in which many thousands of dollars have been invested.

The bill complains of several distinct alleged nuisances, as follows: (1) That there is a dirt road used by the traveling public to and from complainant's mill, and that the defendant's present pumping station is located on or so near to this road that the noise and other operation of the pumping station alarm passing teams, hindering and deterring customers from coming to and going from complainant's mill. (2) That the defendant proposes to increase the output from its ore mines, and to that end proposes to construct, and has in fact commenced the construction of, an additional pumping station in the immediate vicinity of the pumping station now in use, all of which, by reason of its operation and noise, etc., will still further prevent customers from using the road to complainant's mill. (3) The bill claims that defendant in its ore-washing operations has allowed, and still allows, mud and muddy water to be deposited upon another road leading to its mill, and has dammed up and prevented the use of such road. (4) The bill claims that defendant has allowed mud and muddy water to wash down against, and injure and damage, a trestle on which complainant's railroad passes over the stream called 'Galt's Branch,' alleging that, as a result, from the mud and muddy water escaping from defendant's dams, this trestle has on two occasions been washed away.

The complainant prays for relief as follows: (1) For a judgment against the defendant for $1,000 damages suffered before the filing of the suit; (2) that the defendant and its agents be enjoined pendente lite from maintaining and operating the pump and boiler and pumping station existing as aforesaid, and from erecting, maintaining, or operating a new pumping station within 100 yards of either of said roads, and from using either of said pumps, boilers, or pumping stations to make violent and terrifying noises; (3) that the defendant be enjoined, pendente lite and permanently, from maintaining mud ponds, and mud dams or mud dikes, and from putting or emptying mud or muddy water from defendant's lands, or into, or upon and into, any branch, slough, or depression whereby the same might be and naturally would be washed down upon said plaintiff's land, or against its trestle, or in and upon either of said roads, and from operating any iron-ore washers in such a manner that mud or muddy water runs therefrom, so that the same would naturally run upon plaintiff's lands or trestle, or either of said roads, and from depositing mud or muddy water at any place where, by reason of any sort, said mud or muddy water would naturally and in the course of nature, and according to the laws of gravitation, be washed or flooded in or upon any of said roads, in or upon or against said trestle, or in or upon or into any branch or slough or natural depression crossing either of said roads, or upon said plaintiff's lands.

On this motion complainant has submitted numerous affidavits, to the effect that the damage resulting to the defendant by reason of being compelled to remove the present pumping station, and build the proposed pumping station within the limits said to be necessary in the bill, will not exceed in amount $350 to $500. It has submitted no affidavits in regard to the cost resulting to the defendant in case it should be required to hereafter comply...