## Facts

- Albert C. Clark owned a two-acre lakeshore parcel on Eagle Lake in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, used as a summer residence.
- Leander Wambold owned the adjoining farm and feed mill immediately east of Clark’s property and raised pigs for sale.
- Pig pens and yards were located near the feed mill and near Clark’s property; the facilities existed and were in use when Clark bought his property in 1905.
- Clark purchased two small strips of land from Wambold where pig pens sat, intending that the pens be relocated farther from Clark’s summer house.
- Witness testimony conflicted on conditions and effects:
  - Clark’s witnesses described filthy pens and continuous, highly offensive summer odors drifting onto Clark’s land.
  - Wambold’s witnesses described pens kept as clean and sanitary as reasonably possible, consistent with customary farm practice.
- The number of pigs increased somewhat beginning around 1911–1912, but the operation remained limited (several brood sows and sale of young pigs).

## Issues

1. Whether a neighboring landowner is entitled to injunctive relief for nuisance where pig pens are a lawful farm use, maintained as cleanly as reasonably possible, and produce only ordinary and unavoidable odors that do not materially interfere with the neighbor’s use and enjoyment as measured by ordinary sensibilities.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Clark’s complaint seeking an injunction.
- The court accepted the trial court’s findings that the pens were kept in as clean and sanitary condition as could be expected and that any odors were those necessarily incident to well-kept pig pens.
- The court held that the resulting odors did not materially interfere with Clark’s enjoyment or materially impair use of his property by persons of ordinary sensibilities.
- Because the activity was lawful, reasonably conducted, and did not cause substantial interference, it was not an enjoinable private nuisance.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful use of land, conducted in a reasonably clean and sanitary manner, is not a nuisance merely because it causes some discomfort, including ordinary odors, if it does not materially interfere with neighboring property’s ordinary use and enjoyment.
- Nuisance liability requires substantial interference evaluated objectively by the effect on persons of ordinary sensibilities, not unusually sensitive or fastidious neighbors.
- Courts will not grant injunctive relief to suppress normal incidents of customary rural agricultural activity when the challenged operation is reasonable in scale and operation for the locality.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin a customary farm pig-raising operation where the pens were reasonably maintained and the odors were the ordinary byproduct of that lawful use, finding no material interference with the neighbor’s property as judged by ordinary sensibilities.


Clark v. Wambold, 165 Wis. 70, 160 N.W. 1039 (1917)