Middlestadt v. Waupaca Starch & Potato Co.

Decision Date27 March 1896
Citation93 Wis. 1,66 N.W. 713
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court


Appeal from circuit court, Waupaca county; Charles M. Webb, Judge.

Action by William Middlestadt against the Waupaca Starch & Potato Company to enjoin the pollution of a natural stream. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action brought to restrain the defendant from throwing refuse matter from its starch factory into the Waupaca river, upon the theory that such refuse matter polluted the river and injured the plaintiff as a riparian owner. The court found that plaintiff was, and had been for several years, the owner of lands along the shores of the Waupaca river below defendant's starch factory, upon which lands he resided with his family; that defendant had operated the factory for several years, during which time it had been customary to throw the refuse matter therefrom into the river, which resulted in polluting the waters thereof and of Weyauwega Lake in front of plaintiff's farm so as to seriously injure the health and personal comfort of plaintiff and his family, and to prevent the use of the water of the river for domestic purposes, and that, unless restrained by the court, defendant would continue to so operate its factory and pollute the waters of the river, to plaintiff's damage; that the plaintiff had sustained damages to the amount of $100. Judgment was accordingly ordered in favor of plaintiff for $100, and costs, and perpetually restraining and enjoining the defendant from depositing refuse matter from its factory into the Waupaca river, and from polluting the water of said river by the operation of its factory.E. L. & E. E. Browne and Barbers & Beglinger, for appellant.

Felker, Goldberg & Felker, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

It is contended that mere contamination of the water of the Waupaca river so as to injuriously affect the personal comfort of plaintiff and his family, and deprive him of the use of the water of such river for the purpose of watering his stock and for ordinary domestic uses as he could and did before defendant's wrongful acts, does not constitute a nuisance so long as the evidence does not show any loss of life or health; and plaintiff was a farmer having but a few head of stock, and owning the land for only 100 rods along the river, and there was no evidence to show that he ever used the water for household purposes. Wood, Nuis. § 1,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Jack Lewis, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 19, 1933
    ... ... 642, 163 N.W ... 62; Middlestadt v. Waupaca Starch & Potato Co., 93 Wis. 1, 66 ... N.W. 713." In Tureman ... ...
  • Cunningham v. Miller
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • July 8, 1922
    ...Gas Light Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 201;Barth v. Christian Psychopathic Hospital Ass'n, 196 Mich. 642, 163 N. W. 62;Middlestadt v. Waupaca Starch & Potato Co., 93 Wis. 1, 66 N. W. 713. While there are cases which hold the contrary doctrine, we think the rule as stated is the sounder and better rule......
  • McDonough v. Russell-Miller Milling Company, a Corp.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1921
    ... ... Mass. 597, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1044, 83 N.E. 310; ... Middlestadt v. Waupaca Starch & Potato Co. 93 Wis ... 1, 66 N.W. 713; People ex ... ...
  • Parker v. American Woolen Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1907
    ... ... 273, 18 N.E. 88, 1 L. R. A. 296, 6 Am. St. Rep. 366; ... Middlestadt v. Waupaca Starch & Potato Co., 93 Wis ... 1, 66 N.W. 713. In all these ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT