## Facts

- W.D. Griswold Smith owned a summer residence and land in Castleton, Vermont, downstream from Staso Milling Co.’s slate-crushing mill located less than a mile away.
- A brook ran through both properties; the mill used settling beds associated with the brook in connection with its operations.
- The mill’s slate-crushing created slate “sludge” that accumulated in deposits near the brook and, in the ordinary course, entered the water via runoff and the settling-bed system.
- The crushing process also generated slate dust that drifted onto Smith’s land and buildings; the company installed dust-arresting equipment, but dust allegedly continued to invade the property.
- The mill conducted blasting that allegedly caused vibrations and shocks damaging Smith’s residence and interfering with use and enjoyment, including nighttime disturbance.
- Smith had warned the company before construction that he would object to pollution, and the company allegedly assured him pollution would be prevented.
- The district court found actionable interference, enjoined continued pollution and certain blasting-related conduct, and awarded $10,000 in damages for past harm.
- The company appealed, challenging the injunction’s breadth and the damages amount.

## Issues

1. Whether the company’s sludge entering the brook constituted a substantial invasion of riparian rights warranting injunctive relief even if the mill’s operation would be severely affected.
2. Whether dust emissions justified an absolute injunction or a more limited decree in light of available mitigation and equitable considerations.
3. Whether blasting should be broadly enjoined or limited to preventing unreasonable blasting (e.g., night blasting or blasting causing excessive damaging vibrations).
4. Whether the $10,000 damages award for past injury was excessive.

## Decision

- The court applied Vermont common law governing land-use conflicts and riparian rights.
- It affirmed an absolute injunction against pollution of the brook by slate sludge, treating deposits carried into the brook in the ordinary course as equivalent to directly defiling the stream.
- It modified the dust-related injunction to be less absolute, allowing continued operation subject to dust-control efforts and an opportunity to show further reduction was not reasonably feasible.
- It narrowed the blasting-related injunction to restrain night blasting and blasting producing excessive vibrations causing actual damage or serious disturbance.
- It reduced damages from $10,000 to $3,500 as excessive on the record.
- The decree was affirmed as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Industrial waste placed near a watercourse that predictably enters the stream constitutes an actionable invasion of downstream riparian rights.
- Ongoing, nontrivial pollution of a watercourse may justify an absolute injunction in equity.
- Vermont nuisance jurisprudence permits consideration of comparative hardship in shaping equitable relief, particularly where interference is mitigable and the defendant has undertaken control measures.
- Injunctions in nuisance cases may be tailored by separating forms of interference and restraining only unreasonable or preventable conduct (e.g., limiting blasting restrictions to night blasting and excessive damaging vibrations).
- Appellate courts may reduce nuisance damages when the trial award exceeds what the evidence supports for past harm to property and enjoyment.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit protected downstream riparian and property rights by enjoining stream pollution outright, while modifying injunction terms for dust and blasting to focus on preventable or unreasonable harms, and it reduced the damages award to reflect the proven extent of past injury.


Smith v. Staso Milling Co., 18 F.2d 736 (2d Cir. 1927)