Page images
PDF
EPUB

a natural pond has been for a long time enlarged by artificial means or diminished by the deepening of its outlet, grants of land bounded by the pond extend to the margin of the water as it stands at the time of the conveyance.1 If the margin varies at different seasons of the year, the grant includes the land which is uncovered at low-water; and if the pond is artificially raised only in winter, and retains its natural level in summer, the low-water mark in summer is the boundary, though the deed may have been executed in the winter. If land is described as bounded "along the high-water mark of the pond," the boundary is fixed and does not follow the changes in the high-water mark. A change in the water of a lake or pond from fresh to salt, caused by cutting a channel between it and an arm of the sea, and making it subject to the daily rise and fall of the tide, does not affect the boundaries of the riparian owners, who continue to hold to the former low-water mark, notwithstanding the rule which makes the high-water mark the boundary of lands upon tide waters.5 It should also be

tended too far by carrying its effect to
the natural barrier; third, that de-
cision was equally sustained, whether
the parol evidence was admitted, or
the terms of the grant by their own
force extended so far; fourth, the ad-
mission of the parol evidence was
based upon the theory that the bound-
ary on the pond, as applied to the
subject matter, was governed by no
settled rule of legal construction, but
created a latent ambiguity; and the
rules for the construction of similar
grants were not then as fully estab-
lished in this Commonwealth as they
have since been by the later decisions
already referred to. For instance, in
Tyler v. Hammond, 11 Pick. 193, in
the previous year, the court had held
that a boundary by a highway gen-
erally extended only to the margin of
the way
-a doctrine wholly repudi-
ated by the modern decisions. New-
hall v. Ireson, 8 Cush. 595; Phillips v.

Bowers, 7 Gray, 21; Boston v. Richardson, 13 Allen, 146; Stark v. Coffin, 105 Mass. 328."

1 Bradley v. Rice, 13 Maine, 198; Wood v. Kelly, 30 Maine, 47, 55; Robinson v. White, 42 Maine, 209; Nelson v. Butterfield, 21 Maine, 220, 229. See the last case upon the question when an arm of a pond is enclosed within the lines of land conveyed, so as to be included in the grant. A lease for 500 years of a factory lot and dam lot," together with all the land which may be flowed by raising said dam" to a certain height, conveys all the land under the pond, and passes the pond of water and the fish therein, as incidents of the principal grant. Smith v. Miller, 5 Mason,

191.

2 Wood v. Kelley, 30 Maine, 47.
3 Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160.
4 Cook v. McClure, 58 N. Y. 437.

5 Wheeler v. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377.

observed in this connection that no title is acquired to the bed of a public or a private lake, by the existence of an easement of maintaining a dam for twenty years at its outlet, and flooding back the water over the bed of the lake and the adjacent lands.1 Such overflowing does not constitute an ouster.2

1 Perrine v Bergen, 2 Green (N. J.) 355; Cocheco Co. v. Strafford, 51 N. H. 455, 461; Green v. Harman, 4 Dev. (N. C.) 158; Everett v. Dockery, 7 Jones (N. C.) 390. The person who has maintained a dam at the outlet of

a lake or pond for twenty years, and thereby held back the water, is not liable to be taxed for the bed of the lake, or for the lands so flowed on its borders. 51 N. H. 455.

2 Ibid.

PART II.

PRIVATE WATERS.

CHAPTER VI.

RIGHTS OF RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS IN THE NATURAL FLOW

AND CONDITION OF THE STREAM.

SECTION.

204. Rights of different proprietors upon a fresh-water stream to the flow

of the water.

205. Right to the ordinary and extraordinary use of the water.

206-209. The right of each proprietor limited by a like right in the other

proprietors to use the stream.

210. Evidence and effect of judgments.

211-211 b. Measure of damages for flowage.

211 c. Flowing caused by combination of natural and artificial causes.

212. Flowing when a public nuisance.

213-215. Diversion.

216. Diversion caused by alterations in the surface of one's own land.

217. Diversion for irrigation.

218. Obstruction of the natural current.

219-222. Pollution.

223. Remedies for pollution.

234. Rights of non-riparian proprietors.

225. Right of adjoining land-owners in artificial watercourses.

§ 204. Riparian proprietors upon both navigable and unnavigable streams are entitled, in the absence of grant, license, or prescription limiting their rights, to have the stream which washes their lands flow as it is wont by nature, without material diminution or alteration.1 Each proprietor may, therefore, insist that the stream shall flow to his land in the usual quantity, at its natural place and height, and that it shall flow off his land to his neighbor below in its accustomed place and at its usual level.2 The proprietors have no property in the flowing water, which is indivisible and not the subject of riparian ownership, but may use it

1 Shury v. Piggot, 3 Bulst. 339; Poph. 166; Brown v. Best, 1 Wilson, 174; Palmer v. Heblethwaite, Skinner, 65, 175; Rutland v. Bowler, Palmer, 290; Miner v. Gilmour, 12 Moo. P. C. 156; Wright v. Howard, 1 Sim. & Stu. 190; Dickinson v. Grand Junction Canal Co., 7 Exch. 282; Rex r. Trafford, 1 B. & Ad. 259; Saunders r. Newman, 1 B. & Ald. 258; Wood v. Waud, 3 Exch. 748; Embrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 353; Sampson v. Hoddinott, 1 C. B. N. s. 590; Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co., 1 App. Cas. 662; Chasemore v. Richards, 5 H. & N. 989; 2 H. & N. 181; 7 II. L. Cas. 349; Crossley

2".

Lightowler, L. R. 3 Eq. 296; Frankum v. Falmouth, 6 C. & P. 5; Rawstron v. Taylor, 11 Exch. 382; Williams v. Morland, 2 B. & C. 510; Bealey v. Shaw, 6 East, 208; Mason v. Hill, 3 B. & Ad. 304; 5 B. & Ad. 1; Duncombe v. Randall, Hetley, 32; Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 507; Davis v. Getchell, 50 Maine, 602; Pillsbury v. Moore, 44 Maine, 154; Johns v. Stevens, 3 Vt. 308; Anthony r. Lapham, 5 Pick. 175; Cary v. Daniels, 8 Met. 466; Pratt v. Lamson, 2 Allen, 275; Tourtelot v. Phelps, 4 Gray, 370; Whitney v. Eames, 11 Met. 517; Merrifield v. Worcester, 110 Mass. 219; Cowles v. Kidder, 24 N. H. 365; Agawam Canal Co. v. Edwards, 36 Conn. 476; Buddington v. Bradley, 10

Conn. 213; Gillett v. Johnson, 30 Conn. 180; King v. Tiffany, 9 Conn. 162; Hutchinson v. Coleman, 5 Hal. (N. J.) 74; Bowman v. Wathen, 2 McLean, 376; Dilling v. Murry, 6 Ind. 324; Mitchel v. Parks, 26 Ind. 354; Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Texas, 304; Shreve v. Voorhees, 2 Green Ch. 25; Hill v. Newman, 5 Cal. 445; McDonald r. Askew, 29 Cal. 207; Hendricks v. Johnston, 6 Porter 472; Moffett ". Brewer, 1 G. Greene, 348; Overton v. Sawyer, 1 Jones, 308; Haynes v. Gratt, 1 McCord, 543; Omelvany v. Jaggers, 2 Hill (S. C) 634; Martin v. Jett, 12 La. 501; Davis v. Fuller, 12 Vt. 178; Johns v. Stevens, 3 Vt. 308; Adams v. Barney, 25 Vt. 225; Martin v. Bigelow, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 24; Howe Scale Co. v. Terry, 47 Vt. 109. And see cases cited post, § 214.

2 Ibid.; Tillotson v. Smith, 32 N. H. 94.

3 Ibid.; Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324; Owen v. Field, 102 Mass. 104: Baltimore v. Appold, 42 Md. 442; Pixley v. Clark, 35 N. Y. 524; Pollitt v. Long, 56 N. Y. 200; 58 Barb. 20; Corning v. Troy Iron Factory, 40 N. Y. 191; 39 Barb. 311; 34 Barb. 485; 6 How. Pr. 89; Clinton v. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511; Townsend v. McDonald, 2 Kern. 391; Arnold v. Foot, 12 Wend. 330; Lancey v. Clifford, 54 Maine, 407, 490; Munroe v. Gates, 48

for any purpose to which it can be applied beneficially and without material injury to others' rights, or for which the fall of the stream may make it available as a motive power.2 They may insist that their right to thus use the water shall be regarded and protected as property. The right to the use of the water in its natural flow is not a mere easement or appurtenance, but is inseparably annexed to the soil itself. It does not depend upon user, or presumed grant from long acquiescence in the part of other riparian proprietors above and below, but exists jure naturae as parcel of the land.5 It is not suspended or destroyed by mere non-user,6

Maine, 463, 466; 42 Maine, 178; Taylor v. Fickas, 64 Ind. 167; Plum leigh v. Dawson, 1 Gilman, 544; Bliss v. Kennedy, 43 Ill. 67; Druley v. Adam, 102 Ill. 177; 2 Black. Com. 18; Callis on Sewers, 268; Canal Trustees v. Havens, 11 Ill. 554; Cooper v. Williams, 4 Ohio, 286; 5 Ohio, 391; Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio St. 299; Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mason, 397; McCord v. High, 24 Iowa, 336; Meyers v. St. Louis, 8 Mo. App. 263; Merrill v. Parker, Coxe (N. J.) 460; Mayor v. Commissioners, 7 Penn. St. 348; Hart v. Evans, 8 Penn. St. 13; McCoy v. Danley, 20 Penn. St. 85; Wheatley v. Christman, 24 Penn. St. 298; Beidleman v. Foulk, 5 Watts. 308; Randall v. Silverthorn, 4 Penn. St. 173; Eddy v. Simpson, 3 Cal. 249; McDonald v. Askew, 29 Cal. 200; Dalton v. Bowker, 8 Nev. 190; Kauffman v. Griesmer, 26 Penn. St. 407; Martin v. Riddle, 27 Penn. St. 415; Howell v. McCoy, 3 Rawle, 256; Hoy v. Sterrett, 2 Watts, 327.

[blocks in formation]

Brown v. Bush, 45 Penn. St. 61; Beissell v. Scholl, 4 Dallas, 211. Water-power, though an incident to property in the land, is itself the subject of property. Tillotson v. Smith, 32 N. H. 94; Brown v. Bush, 45 Penn. St. 61; Eddy v. Simpson, 3 Cal. 249; Kidd v. Laird, 15 Cal. 161.

4 Dickinson v. Grand Junction Canal Co., 7 Exch. 299; Wright v. Howard, 1 Sim. & Stu. 190; Wood v. Waud, 3 Exch. 748; Stokoe v. Singers, 8 El. & Bk. 36; Johnson v. Jordan, 2 Met. 239; Crittenden v. Alger, 11 Met. 281; Wadsworth v. Tillotson, 15 Conn. 366, 373; Marlborough Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 2 Conn. 590; Parker v. Griswold, 17 Conn. 299; Harding v. Stamford Water Co., 41 Conn. 87, 92; Gardner v. Newburgh, 2 Johns. Ch. 166; Holsman v. Boiling Spring Co., 1 McCart. 343; Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Penn. St. 528; Evans v. Merreweather, 3 Scam. 492; Union Mill Co. v. Ferris, 2 Sawyer, 176; Shamleffer v. Peerless Mill Co., 18 Kansas, 24; Williamson v. Lock's Creek Canal Co., 78 N. C. 156; 76 N. C. 478; Pugh v. Wheeler, 2 Dev. & Bat. 50; Hill r. Newman, 5 Cal. 445.

5 Ibid.

6 Sampson v. Hoddinott, 1 C. B. N. s. 590; Johnson v. Jordan, 2 Met. 239; Pillsbury v. Moore, 44 Maine, 154; Townsend v. McDonald, 12 N. Y. 381, 391; 14 Barb. 460.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »