## Facts

- Allouez Mining Co. built and operated a copper stamp mill on Hill Creek, discharging large quantities of tailings (sand and slime) into the creek.
- The tailings were carried downstream and deposited onto nearby lands, affecting timber and potential cultivation.
- About a year after the mill began operating, Thomas W. Edwards purchased a downstream parcel already subject to the continuing deposits.
- Edwards bought the parcel with knowledge of the ongoing condition and with the aim of pressuring the company to repurchase the land at a large profit.
- After Allouez refused to buy the land back at Edwards’s demanded price, Edwards sued in equity to enjoin further discharges onto his land.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner who knowingly purchases property already affected by an ongoing nuisance, for speculative leverage, is entitled to injunctive relief.
2. Whether equity may deny an injunction for a continuing physical invasion where monetary damages may compensate the injury.
3. Whether the plaintiff’s conduct and the comparative hardship to the defendant are proper grounds to withhold an injunction.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the decree denying the injunction, with costs.
- The court held Edwards was not entitled to the extraordinary equitable remedy of an injunction on these facts.
- The court indicated Edwards could pursue legal damages for any actual injury.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctions are discretionary, extraordinary remedies; they are not granted as of right and generally require that legal remedies be inadequate.
- A plaintiff seeking equitable relief must proceed in good faith; equity may withhold relief where the plaintiff has effectively invited or provoked the injury.
- Courts may balance hardships and deny an injunction when the likely burden of restraint would be substantially greater than the plaintiff’s injury.
- Denial of an injunction does not necessarily eliminate liability; damages at law may remain available for proven harm from a continuing nuisance.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin the mine’s continuing discharge of tailings because the plaintiff purchased the affected land with full knowledge and for speculative advantage, and because equity could deny relief based on good faith and hardship balancing while leaving the plaintiff to a damages remedy at law.


Edwards v. Allouez Mining Co., 38 Mich. 46 (Mich. 1878)