Case ID: wis_191/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Vinje, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reichardt, Appellant, vs. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Respondent.
    
      October 14
    
    November 9, 1926.
    
    
      Appeal: Findings of court: Sufficiency.
    
    Findings of fact in an action to abate a nuisance and for damages are held sustained by the evidence.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Chester A. Fowler, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action to abate a nuisance and for damages. The substance of plaintiff’s complaint is that he is a resident of Johnson’s Woods near West Allis, Wisconsin; that his premises lie on a lower level than those of the defendant, and that the defendant has unlawfully discharged from its boilers, utensils, pools, and receptacles effluents in excess of 100,000 gallons per day, and that such effluents have been highly impregnated with refuse oil, sewage, sludges, and various other noxious ingredients; that by reason thereof plaintiff’s premises have been flooded at times; rendered practically unfit for habitation, and his well has been made unfit for domestic use and the soil rendered unfit for gardening.
    The defendant’s answer is a general 'denial, and alleges in addition that it has discharged its effluent into a natural watercourse known as Johnson’s creek that flows adjacent to plaintiff’s property; that the reason plaintiff has suffered damages from polluted water has been due to natural causes and the pollution caused by the inhabitants residing on or around Johnson’s creek and its tributaries; that defendant’s effluent is sanitary and harmless; that it has not caused any flooding of Johnson’s creek, and that it has constantly for more than twenty years used the stream in substantially the same manner and to the same extent it is now using it. It further alleges that the addition of the effluent from defendant’s plant is beneficial to the plaintiff and the inhabitants along Johnson’s creek because it is practically-pure and its discharge into Johnson’s creek dilutes the pollution therein contained and-renders plaintiff’s premises more sanitary than they otherwise would be; that it retains the surface water in case of heavy rainfalls and" discharges it gradually, thus lessening the liability of plaintiff’s premises to floods; and that whatever damage from floods plaintiff has suffered has been due to the partial damming up of Johnson’s creek by residents adjacent to it.
    The court found the facts substantially as claimed by the defendant and entered a judgment dismissing the complaint upon the merits. Plaintiff appealed.
    For the appellant there was a brief signed by W. B. Rubin and H. W. Hartwig, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Rubin and Mr. Hartwig, both of Milwaukee.
    For the respondent there was a brief by Quarles, Spence & Quarles and Harold W. Story, attorneys, and J. V. Quarles, of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mr. J. V. Quarles and Mr. Story.
    
   Vinje, C. J.

The appeal presents only issues of fact, and the evidence so clearly sustains the findings of the trial court that it would be of no benefit to the legal profession to set out even a synopsis thereof.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.