Urie v. Franconia Paper Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1966 |
| Citation | 218 A.2d 360,107 N.H. 131 |
| Parties | H. Thomas URIE et al. v. FRANCONIA PAPER CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Upton, Sanders & Upton, Concord (Richard F. Upton, Concord, orally), for plaintiffs.
Orr & Reno, Concord (Robert H. Reno, Concord, orally), for defendant.
This action is a bill in equity brought by H. Thomas Urie and fifteen others seeking to enjoin and restrain the defendant from further pollution of the waters of the Pemigewasset River and that defendant be ordered to take such reasonable measures as may be required to abate the private nuisance resulting to the plaintiffs.
It is alleged in the petition that the plaintiffs are owners of real estate situated in the Bristol-New Hampton area in the valley of the Pemigewasset River. Certain of the plaintiffs are riparian owners of real estate bordering said Pemigewasset River. The defendant, Franconia Paper Corporation is engaged in the manufacture of pulp and paper products at Lincoln on or near the Pemigewasset River upstream from the lands of the plaintiffs.
It is further alleged that the defendant in the course of its manufacturing processes is and for several years has been discharging sulfite waste liquors, wood and pulp waste material and other pollution into the waters of said river, that the intensity and volume of such discharge has been increasing in the last three or four years and that the waste and pollution is and has been flowing downstream in said river through and past the land of the plaintiffs during this period.
Further, the petition alleges that in times of warm weather or low water conditions in the river the said wastes, solids and pollution by the time they have made their way downstream to a point near the lands of the plaintiffs, have worked, fermented or decayed to the point that they have become foul and offensive to human beings and there has thereby resulted the deposit of foul and offensive sludge and decayed matter in substantial quantities on the lands of those plaintiffs who are riparian owners. It is further alleged that during such warm weather periods the polution of the waters by the defendant has caused the discharge of vile, obnoxious and offensive odors which have permeated the atmosphere on and near the lands and premises of the plaintiffs causing substantial and appreciable injury to the plaintiffs in their use and enjoyment of their property and rendering their enjoyment of their property uncomfortable and inconvenient.
The plaintiffs assert that the action of the defendant in the circumstances alleged is an unreasonable use of its premises and of the waters of the said Pemigewasset River and constitutes a private nuisance as to these plaintiffs and that such pollution by the defendant in the circumstances alleged is a constantly recurring grievance, day by day.
In their brief the plaintiffs advise that since the instant action was instituted there has been determined and they will offer to prove that the odors discharged from the polluted river waters are hydrogen sulfide gas which is not only highly offensive to human beings but also attacks the lead-based point on dwellings and other buildings in the vicinity causing them to turn black, and that the existence of this condition has also caused a substantial depreciation in property values of the plaintiffs which plaintiffs stand ready to prove.
The defendant in its answer makes a general denial of the allegation that its operations are polluting the Pemigewasset River and by way of affirmative defense alleges that the East Branch of the Pemigewasset River, in the towns of Lincoln and Woodstock, from the dam of the Franconia Paper Corporation to the confluence with the Pemigewasset River has been classified by the Legislature as Class D water and that the Pemigewasset River from its confluence with the East Branch of the Pemigewasset River in the town of Woodstock to the crest of the Eastman Falls Dam in Franklin has been classified by the Legislature as Class D water. Laws of 1959, 243:1, VII, VIII. See note following RSA 149:6.
The defendant further alleges that no order for abatement of pollution of the waters of the East Branch of the Pemigewasset River from the dam of the Franconia Paper Corporation to the confluence with the Pemigewasset River and of the Pemigewasset River from its confluence with the East Branch of the Pemigewasset River to the crest of the Eastman Falls Dam in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp.
...related to pollution caused by coal-fired boilers even though owner had obtained environmental permits); Urie v. Franconia Paper Corp., 107 N.H. 131, 218 A.2d 360, 362–63 (N.H.1966) (permitting private nuisance action for pollution even though defendant complied with state environmental law......
-
White Lake Imp. Ass'n v. City of Whitehall
...remedies in Commonwealth ex rel. Shumaker v. New York & P.R. Co. (1951), 367 Pa. 40, 79 A.2d 439; similarly, see Urie v. Franconia Paper Corp. (1966), 107 N.H. 131, 218 A.2d 360; People v. City of Los Angeles (1958), 160 Cal.App.2d 494, 325 P.2d 639, 645.27 See, generally, Louis L. Jaffe, P......
-
Lunda v. Matthews, 22488
...Supply Co., 252 Iowa 1102, 109 N.W.2d 695 (1961); Weltshe v. Graf, 323 Mass. 409, 82 N.E.2d 795 (1948); Urie v. Franconia Paper Corp., 107 N.H. 131, 218 A.2d 360, 362 (1966); Sakler v. Huls, Ohio Com.Pl., 20 Ohio Op.2d 283, 183 N.E.2d 152 (1961); Barnes v. Quarries, Inc., 204 Va. 414, 132 S......
-
Robie v. Lillis
...with the use and enjoyment of another's property. See Webb v. Rye, 108 N.H. 147, 230 A.2d 223 (1967); Urie v. Franconia Paper Co., 107 N.H. 131, 218 A.2d 360 (1966); Proulx v. Keene, 102 N.H. 427, 158 A.2d 455 (1960); Lane v. Concord, 70 N.H. 485, 49 A. 687 (1900). See generally 6-A America......