McDonough v. Russell-Miller Milling Co.

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CHRISTIANSON, J.
• Citation: McDonough v. Russell-Miller Milling Co., 38 N.D. 465, 165 N.W. 504 (N.D. 1917)
• Decision Date: 02 October 1917
• Docket Number: 1915

165 N.W. 504

38 N.D. 465

JOHN MCDONOUGH v. RUSSELL-MILLER MILLING COMPANY, a Corporation

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

October 2, 1917

Rehearing denied December 14, 1917.

From a judgment of the District Court of Stark County, Crawford, J plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

F. C Heffrom and Murtha & Sturgeon, for appellant.

Where one uses a natural running stream of water as a dumping place for all offal matter from his mill, and for all the excrement of his many employees, this is not a reasonable use, by a riparian owner, so as to exempt him from damages, and furthermore, such acts are criminal under our statutes. Comp Laws 1913, §§ 10,225 and 10,226; Satterfield v Rowan, 83 Ga. 187, 9 S.E. 677; Red River Roller Mills v. Wright, 30 Minn. 249, 44 Am. Rep. 194, 15 N.W. 167; Weston Paper Co. v. Pope, 155 Ind. 394, 56 L.R.A. 899, 57 N.E. 719; 2 Farnham, Waters, pp. 1705 and 1709.

The pollution of a stream being a wrongful act, no permanent right to continue it can be acquired. The foundation for damages is the diminished rental value of the property because of the pollution of the stream. A recovery may also be had for any special injury caused by the wrongful act of unreasonable use. 2 Farnham, Waters, p. 1718, § 527; 40 Cyc. 601 (g); Handforth v. Maynard, 154 Mass. 414, 28 N.E. 348; Ferguson v. Firmenich Mfg. Co., 77 Iowa 576, 14 Am. St. Rep. 319, 42 N.W. 448; Hollenbeck v. Marion, 116 Iowa 69, 89 N.W. 210; Weston Paper Co. v. Pope, 155 Ind. 394, 56 L.R.A. 899, 57 N.E. 719; Weston Paper Co. v. Comstock, Ind. , 58 N.E. 79; North Point Consol. Irrig. Co. v. Utah & S. L. Canal Co., 23 Utah 199, 63 P. 812; Farr v. Griffith, 9 Utah, 416, 35 P. 506; Muncie Pulp Co. v. Martin, 164 Ind. 30, 72 N.E. 882; Muncie Pulp Co. v. Keesling, 166 Ind. 479, 76 N.E. 1002, 9 Ann. Cas. 530; Straight v. Hover, 79 Ohio St. 263, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 276, 87 N.E. 174.

"If one up the stream, in his works, be they ever so lawful, honorable or necessary for public or private weal, do thereby injure the land of that owner further down the stream, by unlawful invasion of it, by casting upon it things damaging it, or by polluting the purity of the water, rendering it unfit for the owner's consumption as it passes through his land, the man up the stream must answer in damages." Day v. Louisville Coal & Coke Co., 60 W.Va. 27, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 167, 53 S.E. 776.

The plaintiff is entitled to his injunctional remedy. The showing is that defendant, by its unreasonable and unlawful use of the stream, has so polluted its waters as to render them unfit and unsafe for those farther down the stream to use. Barrett v. Mt. Greenwood Cemetery Asso. 159 Ill. 385, 31 L.R.A. 109, 50 Am. St. Rep. 168, 42 N.E. 891; Weston Paper Co. v. Pope, 155 Ind. 394, 56 L.R.A. 899, 57 N.E. 719; Kewanee v. Otley, 204 Ill. 402, 68 N.E. 388; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Crothersville, 159 Ind. 330, 64 N.E. 914; Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co., 164 N.Y. 303, 51 L.R.A. 687, 79 Am. St. Rep. 643, 58 N.E. 142, 21 Mor. Min. Rep. 38; Ferguson v. Firmenich Mfg. Co., 77 Iowa 576, 14 Am. St. Rep. 319, 42 N.W. 448; Bradley v. Warner, 21 R. I. 36, 41 A. 564; Farnham, Waters, pp. 1689, 7108, §§ 522 et seq.; Chapman v. Rochester, 110 N.Y. 273, 1 L.R.A. 297, 6 Am. St. Rep. 366, 18 N.E. 88; Barton v. Union Cattle Co., 28 Neb. 350, 7 L.R.A. 457, 26 Am. St. Rep. 340, 44 N.W. 454; Columbus & H. Coal & I. Co. v. Tucker, 48 Ohio St. 41, 12 L.R.A. 577, 29 Am. St. Rep. 528, 26 N.E. 630; Hodges v. Pine Products Co., 135 Ga. 134, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 74, 68 S.E. 1107, 21 Ann. Cas. 1052; Trevett v. Prison Asso. 98 Va. 332, 50 L.R.A. 564, 81 Am. St. Rep. 727, 36 S.E. 373.

Statutes like our own are to be liberally construed with a view to enforcing the object for which they were intended. 2 Farnham, Waters, pp. 1533 and 1534; People v. Truckee Lumber Co., 116 Cal. 397, 39 L.R.A. 581, 58 Am. St. Rep. 183, 48 P. 374; State v. Taylor, 29 Ind. 517; Com. v. Yost, 11 Pa. S.Ct. 323; Catlin v. Valentine, 9 Paige, 575, 38 Am. Dec. 567.

Watson, Young, & Conmy, for respondent.

"A trial de novo cannot be had in the supreme court in an action properly triable to a jury, even though a jury was waived and the cause tried to the court." Novak v. Lovin, 33 N.D. 424, 157 N.W. 297.

Appellant's so-called "citation of errors" is insufficient, and is not in compliance with the statute, even in a case where a trial de novo might properly be asked. Comp. Laws 1913, § 7656.

The evidence in this case cannot be reviewed in its entirety to determine whether or not the findings are sustained, since the case was not proprly tried under the statute authorizing such procedure. More v. Burger, 15 N.D. 345, 107 N.W. 200; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Hellekson, 13 N.D. 257, 100 N.W. 717; Gagnier v. Fargo, 12 N.D. 219, 96 N.W. 841; Flora v. Mathwig, 19 N.D. 4, 121 N.W. 63; Updegraff v. Tucker, 24 N.D. 171, 139 N.W. 366.

The findings of the trial court are at least presumed to be correct. State Bank v. Maier, 34 N.D. 259, 158 N.W. 346.

It is well settled in this state, where it appears that the loss or injury might have been caused in several different ways and because of several different reasons, then the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the injury or loss was occasioned because of the fault of the defendant. Meehan v. Great Northern, 13 N.D. 443, 101 N.W. 183; Balding v. Andrews, 12 N.D. 267, 96 N.W. 305, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 615; Garraghty v. Hartstein, 26 N.D. 148, 143 N.W. 390; Koslowski v. Thayer, 66 Minn. 150, 68 N.W. 973; Dobbins v. Brown, 119 N.Y. 188, 23 N.E. 537.

The appropriate functions of the legislature are to make laws to operate on future incidents, and not to make decisions or forestall rights accrued or vested under previous laws. Duncombe v. Prindle, 12 Iowa 12; Elmondorff v. Carmichael, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 472, 14 Am. Dec. 86.

A plaintiff alleging negligence must prove it. This proof must not be by mere speculation or possibility.

"The plaintiff must show that the act or omission of which he complains was the act or omission of the defendant, and also that such act or omission was a negligent one." Sheldon v. Hudson River R. Co., 29 Barb. 228; Longabaugh v. Virginia City & Truckee R. Co., 9 Nev. 296; Smith v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 295; Omaha & R. Valley R. Co. v. Clark, 35 Neb. 867, 23 L.R.A. 504, 53 N.W. 970; White v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 S.D. 330, 9 L.R.A. 824, 47 N.W. 146; Balding v. Andrews, 12 N.D. 277, 96 N.W. 305, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 615; Scherer v. Schlaberg, 18 N.D. 421, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 520, 122 N.W. 1000; Garraghty v. Hartstein, 26 N.D. 148, 143 N.W. 390.

"Where different parties pollute a stream by discharge of sewerage therein, each from his own premises, and each acting separately and independently of the others, one of the number is not liable for all the injury suffered by another, because of the nuisance thus created; each is liable to the extent only of the wrong committed by him." Chipman v. Palmer, 77 N.Y. 51, 33 Am. Rep. 566.

The fact that it is difficult to separate the injury done by each one from that of others should furnish no reason for holding that one tort-feasor should be liable for the acts of others with whom he is not acting in concert. Barrett v. Third Ave. R. Co. , 45 N.Y. 628; Webster v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 N.Y. 260; Sheridan v. Brooklyn City & N. R. Co., 36 N.Y. 39, 93 Am. Dec. 490, 9 Am. Neg. Cas. 619; Chapman v. New Haven R. Co., 19 N.Y. 341, 75 Am. Dec. 344; Colegrove v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 20 N.Y. 492, 75 Am. Dec. 418; Creed v. Hartmann, 29 N.Y. 591, 86 Am. Dec. 341; Chipman v. Palmer, 77 N.Y. 51, 33 Am. Rep. 566; Harley v. Merrill Brick Co., 83 Iowa 73, 48 N.W. 1000; Sellick v. Hall, 47 Conn. 260; Loughran v. Des Moines, 72 Iowa 382, 34 N.W. 172; Martinowsky v. Hannibal, 35 Mo.App. 70; Little Schuylkill Nav. R. & Coal Co. v. Richards, 57 Pa. 142, 98 Am. Dec. 209, 10 Mor. Min. Rep. 209; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 87 Cal. 430, 22 Am. St. Rep. 254, 25 P. 550; Brown v. McAllister, 39 Cal. 573; Westgate v. Carr, 43 Ill. 450; Partenheimer v. Van Order, 20 Barb. 479; Lull v. Fox & W. Improv. Co., 19 Wis. 100; Brennan v. Corsicana Cotton Oil Co. Tex. Civ. App. , 44 S.W. 588; Vansteenburgh v. Tobias, 17 Wend. 562, 31 Am. Dec. 310; Auchmuty v. Ham, 1 Denio, 495; Keyes v. Little York Gold Washing & Water Co., 53 Cal. 724, 14 Mor. Min. Rep. 95; Sloggy v. Dilworth, 38 Minn. 179, 8 Am. St. Rep. 656, 36 N.W. 451; Harley v. Merrill Brick Co., 83 Iowa 73, 48 N.W. 1000; Sellick v. Hall, 47 Conn. 260; Watson v. Colusa-Parrot Min. & Smelting Co., 31 Mont. 513, 79 P. 15; Mansfield v. Bristor, 76 Ohio St. 270, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 806, 118 Am. St. Rep. 852, 81 N.E. 631, 10 Ann. Cas. 767; Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 430; Newark v. Chestnut Hill Land Co., 77 N.J.Eq. 23, 75 A. 645.

Proof of special damages is not permissible unless the specific facts are clearly pleaded. Potter v. Froment, 47 Cal. 166; Glass v. Gelvin, 80 Mo. 297; Benson v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 78 Mo. 504; Capital Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 59; Moffatt v. Conklin, 35 Mo. 453; Iron Mountain Bank v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 70; Brown v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 80 Mo. 459; Solms v. Lias, 16 Abb. Pr. 311; Donnell v. Jones, 13 Ala. 490, 48 Am. Dec. 49; Cushing v. Seymour, S. & Co., 30 Minn. 301, 15 N.W. 249; Wood's Mayne, Damages, 1st ed. 707-714; 1 Sutherland, Damages, pp. 673-766; 2 Sutherland, Damages, pp. 383-392; Thompson v. Webber, 4 Dak. 245, 29 N.W. 671; Bissell v. Olson, 26 N.D. 60, 143 N.W. 340.

"In an action for the loss of ice destroyed by defendants by draining the waters of a pond, the measure of damages is the value of the plaintiff's right to harvest the ice upon the pond and so to make it his property at the time it was destroyed." Handforth v. Maynard, 154 Mass. 414, 28 N.E. 348.

"In an...