151 Ind. 160 | Ind. | 1897
The appellee sued the appellants to recover damages for, and to restrain them from causing cer’falh' mineral water coming from defendants' well to flow through a certain spring branch adjoining plaintiff’s land, by which the waters of said branch are befouled to the plaintiff’s injury. The issues made were tried by the court, resulting in a, finding and judgment against the defendants, according to the prayer of the complaint. That judgment was, on appeal to this court, reversed for error in sustaining a demurrer to the second paragraph of defendants’ an-I swer. Barnard v. Shirley, 135 Ind. 547, 24 L. E. A. 568. On the return of the case to the circuit court the issues-, were again tried, resulting in a special finding of the facts, upon which the court stated its conclusions of law, upon which it rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, both for damages and enjoining the defendants, as prayed for in the complaint.
The substance of the special finding by the court is: That the land described in the complaint, situate adjoining the city of Martinsville, was purchased by plaintiff from Lafayette Sims on May 10, 1886, and plaintiff has ever since held and possessed the samel
Until within eighteen months past a large tanyard was maintained and operated on Pike street, on the south side thereof, at the point of the turn of said branch west on Pike street, and obtained its water from said branch, and emptied into said branch the refuse from its vats in large quantities at weekly intervals, and which' was of such offensive character, and produced such an offensive odor, as that persons residing in the vicinity were compelled to close their Windows to keep out the stench; and, in connection
Said branch is the only living stream passing or that ever has passed through said town or city. In times of heavy rains and freshets, the surface washing and water from near one-third part of said city, and from pasture hills lying north of it, from cross streets and alleys, flow into said branch on said Pike street, carrying into the same the washings from stables and other outbuildings; that some of the persons residing along said branch throw their soapsuds from clothes washings, and kitchen slops into the same, with other kitchen refuse, including the entrails of chickens; that at the present time there is one or more dead animals in said branch, and there is flowing into it, about 600 feet above where the tile drain from defendants’ sanatarium flows into said branch, a tile drain from the Martinsville Sanatarium, which has been connected with said ditch since .this suit was originally filed; that there is now, and long has been, a city ordinance of said city prohibiting anyone from throwing dead animals or any refuse or befouling substance in said branch, and from in any way befouling the same.
That said branch from said culvert angled some to the west of south, through and across the said lands of plaintiff, and then entered the land of Harvey Satterwhite, and there flowed more westerly, and, prior to the state ditch hereinafter mentioned, caused several considerable ponds on the lands of Satterwhite and plaintiff, lying west of the tract crossed by the
Prior to the commencement of the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants, the water flowing in said branch and through plaintiff’s land, while not pure, was reasonably fit and valuable for farm and stock purposes, and the only stream of water accessible for stock kept and pastured on plaintiff’s land, and was
A large part of plaintiff’s said lands are within the corporate limits of said city,, and are valuable for building purposes, suitable to be platted into town lots, and, if not injured or damaged by any nuisance, they would find reasonably ready sale and demand fpr such purposes. The flow of water from said springs in said ditch or branch through plaintiff’s land, is irregular in quantity, and intermittent in continuity. They almost entirely disappear before reaching the point where the tile drain intercepts them. In midsummer and dry seasons of the year the waters do not ordinarily reach the plaintiff’s land lying below the mouth of the tile drain. During the winter and spring months, and parts of the year other than dry seasons, the waters flow into the lands south of Washington street, and part of the time through the land of plaintiff. For the larger part of the time when said waters reach the lands of plaintiff below the mouth of the tile drain, their flow does not continue during the whole day, but during portions of each day. In dry weather they sink and disappear before
That defendants were assessed and paid benefits arising to their said lots by said ditch to the amount of $132.50, presumably because of their drainage thereto from their sanatarium aforesaid, and when said ditch was completed they were apportioned 500 feet of said ditch, to be by them kept in repair-; that said city was assessed and paid benefits arising from the drainage of a half dozen of her streets by said ditch the sum of $500, and was apportioned 1,000 feet thereof to be kept in repair by said city; that defend
The conclusions of law stated on these facts áre tha the law is with the plaintiff; that she is entitled to a: order and judgment restraining and enjoining th defendants from causing or permitting the water fror their bath house which shall have been used in batl ing and cleansing persons afflicted with infections syphilitic, or other similar disorders to flow, by mean of a tile drain, or otherwise, into the branch o stream in question, or upon or over the lands of th plaintiff, and that she be entitled to recover the sum of $50 as her damages. . ■
The principles laid down, exemplified, and elucidated in the opinion when this case was in this court before, more than warrant us in adjudging that the court erred in its conclusions of law. We need not repeat what was then said, but refer to it as the law of this case. The finding seems ■ somewhat contradictory as to whether appellee has suffered any injury whatever, and therefore it is self-destructive as to that matter. At all events, the statement of the harmlessness of the waters, and the price that appellee has been able to sell her lands for as compared with other land similar in character in said city, neutralizes the statement that she is damaged; but, if she was damaged, as held -in the former opinion,- it is. damnum absque injuria, because the rightful use of one’s own