Case Name: WHALEN v. UNION BAG & PAPER CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-05-16
Citations: 129 N.Y.S. 391
Docket Number: 
Parties: WHALEN v. UNION BAG & PAPER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 129
Pages: 391–395

Head Matter:
WHALEN v. UNION BAG & PAPER CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
May 16, 1911.)
1. Waters and Water Courses (§ 71 )—Pollution of Streams—Apportionment of Damages.
Where several persons contribute to the pollution of a stream, it is proper to apportion the damages.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Dec. Dig. § 71. ]
2. Injunction (§§ 13, 24 )—Issuance—Discretion of Court.
Equity need not issue an injunction, which will produce great public or private mischief, merely to protect a technical or unsubstantial right, and whether equity will enjoin a wrongful act, where the damages are not substantial, depends on the circumstances.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 13, 23; Dec. Dig. §§ 13, 24. ]
3. Waters and Water Courses (§ 75 )—Pollution of Streams—Injunction.
An operator of a pulp mill discharged the refuse of the mill into a . stream running through the land of another used for pasture and meadow land. Others also polluted the stream. The damages from the aggregate pollution to the landowner was insignificant compared to the injury resulting to the operator of the mill in compelling it to discontinue operation, and the landowner would not be materially aided by an injunction restraining the discharge from the pulp mill. Held, that the landowner was not entitled to an injunction, but that on a later showing that the stream was otherwise reasonably pure he could, on a proper showing of the facts, obtain an injunction, or he could take action for other relief for injury to his property subsequently occurring.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Cent. Dig. § 66; Dec. Dig. § 75. ]
Smith, P. J., and Betts, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Saratoga County.
Action by Robert E. Whalen against the Union Bag & Paper Company. From a judgment for plaintiff entered on a decision of the court without a jury, defendant appeals.
Modified, and conditionally affirmed, as modified.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, SEWELL, HOUGHTON, and BETTS, JJ.
J. S.’ L’Amoreaux, for appellant.
Robert E. Whalen, pro se.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff is owner of lands through which Kayaderosseras creek, in the county of Saratoga, flows, and the defendant owns and operates a pulp mill located on said creek above the lands of plaintiff. The defendant discharges its refuse into said creek, and this action is brought to restrain such pollution, and has resulted in a decree perpetually restraining the defendant from so doing, together with damages.
The defendant's plant represents an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in comparison the- plaintiff's farm is of insignificant value. The stream is also polluted by the refuse from a tannery belonging to the American Hide & Leather Company and other mills situated thereon. The learned trial court did not apportion the damages and charge the defendant with that part of the damage which it ca'used. If the defendant shall discontinue the discharge of its refuse into the creek, the water will still be polluted by the refuse from the tannery, as the trial court expressly finds. ^
Where several persons contribute to the pollution of a stream, it is proper to apportion the damages. Sammons v. City of Gloversville, 34 Misc. Rep. 459, 70 N. Y. Supp. 284, affirmed 67 App. Div. 628, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1145; Id., 175 N. Y. 346, 67 N. E. 622. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant may have bought its peace at a previous time by paying the plaintiff damages at -the rate allowed in the judgment appealed from, we think the damages recovered are altogether too much for that part of the injury which the defendant inflicted, and that $100 per year is an ample allowance. The creek runs through mere pasture and meadow land of the plaintiff; and, while the water of the creek is made foul and offensive from the aggregate pollution, the injury to the plaintiff is insignificant compared to the .injury which would result to the defendant in compelling it' to discontinue the operation of its pulp mill.
A court of equity is not bound to issue an injunction, when it will produce great public or private mischief, merely for the purpose of protecting a technical or unsubstantial right. Gray v. M. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 499, 509, 28 N. E. 498; Loucks v. Payne, 140 App. Div. 776, 125 N. Y. Supp. 850. Whether a court of equity will enjoin a wrongful act where the damages are not substantial depends upon the circumstances. The facts show that it would not materially aid the plaintiff in his endeavor to purify the waters if the defendant were enjoined from emptying its mill refuse into the creek.
The judgment should be modified by eliminating that part granting an injunction, and providing that the plaintiff may at any time apply at the foot of the judgment for an injunction upon showing that otherwise the creek is reasonably pure, or that the other parties illegally contaminating it are properly enjoined or have ceased to pollute the same, and that, upon showing such facts and making it
appear that the ends of justice so require, an injunction substantially as mentioned in the judgment, or such as the court may direct, shall issue, or, at the plaintiff's election, that he may take such action for such other or further relief as he may be advised on account of any injury to his property hereafter occurring; and the judgment is reversed upon the law and facts, and new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce the damages to $100 per year, in which case the judgment is so modified, and, as modified, hereby affirmed without costs to either party.
SMITH, P. J., dissents.