Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Malone
20 A. 900, 73 Md. 268, 9 L.R.A. 737 (1890)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful business, even if useful to the public and conducted with best methods, is liable for nuisance if it causes substantial injury to neighboring property or materially interferes with its comfortable enjoyment, regardless of the business's locality or the plaintiff having 'come to the nuisance.'
Facts:
- Malone owns five dwelling houses on Eighth Avenue in Canton, with one corner house serving as a hotel and the others occupied by tenants.
- Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. owns and operates a large fertilizer factory on the lot adjoining Malone's property.
- The factory manufactures sulphuric acid and commercial fertilizers.
- Noxious gases escape from the factory and are driven by wind onto Malone's premises and those of his tenants.
- These gases are so offensive and noxious that they affect the health of Malone's family, forcing them to leave the table and abandon the house at times.
- The gases materially injure Malone's property, discoloring clothing hung out to dry, staining window glass, and corroding tin spouting on the houses.
- A fertilizer factory (though not necessarily the appellant's current one) had been located on the lot for several years before Malone built his house.
Procedural Posture:
- Malone initiated an action for nuisance against Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. in a trial court (court of first instance).
- The jury heard evidence and considered the facts presented.
- The trial court likely ruled in favor of Malone, as the defendant (Susquehanna Fertilizer Co.) sought to overturn the verdict by appealing.
- Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the fact that a business is located in a proper and convenient place, or that the plaintiff 'came to the nuisance,' constitute a valid defense against a claim of actionable nuisance when the business causes substantial injury to neighboring property or interferes with its comfortable enjoyment?
Opinions:
Majority - Robinson, J.
No, the location of a business or the fact that a plaintiff 'came to the nuisance' does not excuse an actionable nuisance when substantial injury or interference with property enjoyment occurs. The Court affirmed the principle that an actionable injury arises when a business interferes with a neighbor's reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of their property or causes material injury, irrespective of the business's locality, lawfulness, public utility, or use of the best methods. The Court explicitly rejected the defense that a place is 'convenient and proper' for a business if that business constitutes a nuisance and causes substantial injury to another's property, citing the overturning of Hole vs. Barlow by cases like Bamford vs. Turnley and Tipping vs. The St. Helen’s Smelting Company. No use of land can be deemed 'reasonable' if it deprives an adjoining owner of their lawful use and enjoyment. Furthermore, the Court held that 'coming to the nuisance' is not a valid defense unless the defendant has acquired a prescriptive right through 20 years of user, reaffirming that a property owner retains the right to wholesome air and undisturbed enjoyment, as established in Bliss vs. Hall and Crump vs. Lambert. The Court also refused to balance the conveniences or economic loss to the defendant against the plaintiff's right to property enjoyment, stating that a neighboring owner is entitled to protection regardless of the economic consequences to the infringing business.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens property owners' rights against industrial pollution by rejecting common defenses that sought to prioritize economic activity over individual property rights. By unequivocally stating that locality, public utility, and prior existence of a nuisance do not excuse substantial harm, the Court established a clear standard for nuisance liability. This ruling has far-reaching implications, ensuring that industrial development cannot unilaterally infringe upon the comfort and value of neighboring properties without legal consequence, thereby protecting residential and other sensitive land uses from detrimental external effects.
