Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co. 113 Tenn. 331, 83 S.W. 658 (1904) Ducktown (and another company) began smelting copper from a nearby mine. Madison and other nearby landowner sued in three separate trials for injunctions to stop the pollution from the smelter. Madison et. al. charged Ducktown with being a private nuisance. Defined as 'Nontrespassory invasions of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land'. Requires a showing of significant harm.  Copper smelting involves burning a lot of sulfur, which is stinky and kills plants. The three Trial Courts all sided with Ducktown. Under the common law (which was all that existed at the time), Madison would have to prove that he suffered 'significant harm' in order to establish a private nuisance claim. Defined as 'Nontrespassory invasions of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land'. Requires a showing of significant harm. The Trial Courts found that Ducktown's business was lawful, and that burning sulfur was the only feasible way to smelt copper. The Trial Court noted that there wasn't anyplace more remote that Ducktown could move to. If an injunction was granted, Ducktown's land would become worthless. The three Appellate Courts all reversed and issued injunctions to stop the smelting.  Ducktown appealed, and the cases were consolidated on appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and denied the injunction. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that somebody had to lose, either Madison and the other farmers would be out of their land, or the Ducktown mine would have to close. The Court compared the value of Madison's land to Ducktown and found that the loss to Madison was only a few thousand dollars, but if the mine closed, it would cost millions and put lots of people out of work. Therefore, the Court found that in this case of conflicting rights, the best the Court could do was to preserve the largest measure of liberty possible under the circumstances. The Court did allow Madison to collect damages for the damage to his farm, they just wouldn't issue an injunction to shut down the smelting operation. A capitalist would say that this was the best solution.  If the damages caused by the smelter were greater than the profit they were making, they would have to shut down. The Court was reluctant to order the smelter to stop operating because they didn't want to restrict how the mining company used the land they owned.  But just shutting down the smelter would not remove all value from the land, they could have used the land for something else. The Court did not specifically address how to calculate damages.  The damage from the smelter didn't just destroy one year's worth of crops, it semi-permanently destroyed the land, resulting in loss of crops for 50-100 years.  So what would be a fair settlement?