Bailey v. Miller

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants, who operate a sawmill in Charles County close to the residence of the appellees, have appealed because aggrieved at having been held in contempt of court for failing to comply with a decree which enjoined them from operating théir mill “in such a manner as to create noise of such volume and quantity as to deprive the Plaintiffs and members of their ¹⁴⁰ family from the reasonable use and comfortable enjoyment” of their dwelling house. The decree enjoining the making of excess noise was passed on September 27, 1962. No appeal was taken by the sawmill operators, who attempted to correct the conditions complained of by engaging the ’ services and procuring the advice of an acoustical expert and following his recommendations to replace a diesel engine with an electric motor and to insulate and muffle other noisy machines by building walls around them.

Two months after the passage of the enjoining decree, the appellees filed a petition alleging that the appellants had not ceased creating loud noises of such volume and amount as to deprive the appellees and their family from the reasonable use and comfortable enjoyment of their dwelling house, and praying that the appellants be adjudged in contempt. Before passing the original decree, the court heard testimony of an expert and of the owners and occupants of the dwelling house that the noise created by the operation of the sawmill was so much beyond the limits of reasonable tolerance as to diminish the value of the complainants’ property as a dwelling materially and to interfere seriously with ordinary enjoyment of it and with comfort in its use. The chancellor recognized that the sawmill, which had cost some $200,000, employed thirty-five men and made a significant contribution to the economy of the County, was a lawful business, operating on land zoned to permit the use. He found that the noise it made constituted “a nuisance which the plaintiffs could not be charged with anticipating when they purchased their property and which was brought to the community by the defendants.” He concluded that the noise could be controlled and gave the sawmill operators an opportunity “to determine their own choice of corrective measures.” After the filing of the homeowners’ petition seeking citation of the mill owners for contempt, Judge Powers received testimony from the parties and an expert produced by the mill owners, who told of the measures taken to reduce the noise and his decibel evaluations which showed to him that it was perhaps at the limit of tolerance but not beyond, and, with the permis ¹⁴¹ sion of both sides, visited the site and watched and listened to the mill in operation.

The chancellor concluded that an effort had been made to abate the nuisance he previously had found to exist,