Smith v. Staso Milling Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
18 F.2d 736 (1927)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Smith (plaintiff) owned a house in Vermont. Staso Milling Company (Staso) (defendant) purchased property nearby for a slate-crushing mill. Smith warned Staso not to pollute a stream flowing through both properties that provided Smith’s domestic water supply. Staso repeatedly assured Smith that filters and settling basins would prevent any pollution or interference with the stream flow. After Staso built the mill, the settling ponds overflowed during heavy rains, depositing sludge into the stream and Smith’s reservoirs. The mill also created dust clouds that covered Smith’s property even though Staso had installed dust arresters designed to trap 99 percent of the dust. Finally, when Staso blasted slate, the blasts shook Smith’s house. Smith sued for damages and an injunction to stop Staso from polluting the stream and air and shaking his house. Meanwhile, Staso had invested about $1 million in the plant and employed between 125 and 200 workers with a monthly payroll of $25,000 to $40,000. Staso valued his property at $40,000 despite its costing less than $30,000. The district court enjoined Staso absolutely from polluting the water or air or shaking Smith’s house. Staso appealed, arguing that the injunction imposed undue hardship because compliance would effectively require shutting down the plant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Learned Hand, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
