Watson v. Town of New Milford

• Decision Date: 19 January 1900
• Citation: 72 Conn. 561,45 A. 167
• Parties: WATSON et ux. v. TOWN OF NEW MILFORD.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

45 A. 167

72 Conn. 561

WATSON et ux.

v. TOWN OF NEW MILFORD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 19, 1900.

Appeal from superior court, Litchfield county; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Action by Joseph E. Watson and wife against the town of New Milford to recover damages for the pollution of a stream. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The finding stated these facts: The plain tiffs' land is situated on Great brook, in New Milford. There are no buildings on it. To use it for buildings would require some previous filling on a part of it. It has been used for pasturage, and partly for cultivation, but yields now little income. The annual rental value is $75, and has not been substantially affected by the fouling of the brook. The court, at the request of the parties, viewed the premises in the summer, when the water was low, and saw on the margin of the brook a sediment giving off odors of putrefying sewage, unwholesome and offensive, and also undissolved constituents of house sewage lying on the ground, offensive to the sight. At times of high water such conditions would not exist. Since 1876 the sewage from the town hall has been discharged through a drain, constructed by a village improvement association, into Great brook, above the plaintiffs' land. In 1893 all the school districts in the town were consolidated, and the town took charge of the public school houses then erected. One of these then discharged its sewage into Great brook, and ever since has. The plaintiffs live seven miles from their land in question. The waters of the brook, where it runs through it, are potable by cattle, and there are trout in it. Their water privilege has no value in its present condition. In 1893 the defendant extended certain sewers through the plaintiff's' land and into the brook thereon, and has since maintained the same. These serve to carry off the surface water from streets, and also house sewage. Various houses have been connected with them for the discharge of their sewage into them, with the knowledge of the selectmen. The town, by its use of the brook as a means of getting rid of the sewage from the town hall and school house, has, in connection with its use by citizens for carrying off the sewage from their houses, caused the state of tilings viewed by the court. The damage thus caused is not irreparable, but an injunction would be a proper remedy to prevent multiplicity of suits, should the town continue such use of the plaintiffs' premises for an unreasonable length of time hereafter. It was not found that the nuisance had prevented them from effecting a sale of the property. Sundry exceptions were taken to rulings on evidence, which are sufficiently stated in the opinion. A bill of exceptions by the plaintiffs was also allowed to the denial of their claim for an injunction.

Leonard J. Nickerson and John F. Addis, for appellant.

James H. McMahon and Frederic M. Williams, for appellees.

BALDWIN, J. (after stating the facts). Towns may build town houses and any necessary outbuildings. Gen. St. § 130; White v. Town of Stamford, 37 Conn. 578, 586. If by connecting with a sewer they can save the expense of outbuildings, or better accomplish the purposes these might otherwise serve, a reasonable construction of the statute gives them the right so to do. School districts have similar powers, and in case of consolidation the town succeeds to the possession of their property, and the responsibilities attaching to such possession. Id. tit. 35, cc. 135, 136; Pub. Acts 1893, p. 410, c. 245. A building owned by a municipal corporation could not be relieved of the rain water falling upon the roof by precipitating it through a spout upon the lands of adjoining proprietors. Their rights may be equally Invaded by the discharge of sewage from it upon their premises. In these respects a municipality has no greater immunities than any private landowner. A nuisance was created upon the plaintiffs' land by the deposit of sewage, and sediment from sewage, offensive from its appearance of its smell. The use of the sewers which receive the surface drainage from highways, and of that built by the village improvement association, by the defendant, to carry off the sewage from its public buildings, contributed to this injury. That others also contributed to it, and perhaps more largely, did not relieve the town from liability. Morgan v. City of Danbury, 67 Conn. 484, 496, 35 Atl. 499.

That the plaintiffs suffered no personal inconvenience from the nuisance, because they old not reside in the vicinity, is immaterial. They were entitled to nominal damages, at least, for the offensive condition of things upon their land, even if the...