 Subject to this condition, he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right to interrupt the regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interferes with the lawful use of the water...  Law Relating to Public Health and Local Government - Page 235by William Cunningham Glen - 1872 - 844 pagesFull view - About this book
 | New Jersey. Court of Chancery - Law reports, digests, etc - 1903 - 930 pages
...purpose of a mill or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right to intercept the regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interferes...proprietors and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." This I understand to be the doctrine of Higgins v. Flcmington Water Works Co., 9 Stew. Eg. 538. The... | |
 | George Valentine Yool - Equitable remedies - 1863 - 308 pages
...him. Subject to this condition he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation.' But he has no right...proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." If the stream begins to flow in a defined channel directly it springs from the ground, these principles... | |
 | Thomas Campbell Foster, William Francis Finlason - Law reports, digests, etc - 1864 - 998 pages
...extraordinary use, provided he does not interfere with the rights of other proprietors above or below. Subject to this condition he may dam up the stream...proprietors and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." That was the law on the subject. Now, in that judgment it was not said that the owner of the land through... | |
 | Québec (Province), Andrew Robertson - Law reports, digests, etc - 1864 - 548 pages
...condition, he may dam up the stream for the purposes of a mill, or direct the water for the purposes of irrigation. But he has no right to interrupt the...water by other proprietors, and inflicts upon them a serious injury. Semble, That for the purposes of this case, it docs not appaar that any material distinction... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer - Law reports, digests, etc - 1867 - 468 pages
...purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right to intercept the regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interferes...proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." According to the law so enunciated, and which no doubt is the law, it would be competent for Mr. Bagshaw,... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer - Law reports, digests, etc - 1868 - 778 pages
...Subject to this condition, he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right...proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." According to the law so enunciated, and which no doubt is the law, it would be competent for Mr. Bagshawe... | |
 | South Australia. Supreme Court - 1868 - 202 pages
...him. Subject to this condition, he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation ; but he has no right...proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." Some exception was taken to this statement of the law in the more recent case of Lord Norbury v. Kitchin,... | |
 | Law - 1884 - 550 pages
...Subject to this condition, he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right...proprietors and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." Since these decisions, the dicta of Tindal, CJ, in Liygins v. Inge, 7 Bing. 682, cited above, can no... | |
 | Law - 1881 - 572 pages
...below him. * * He has no right to interrupt tho regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interfere with the lawful use of the water by other proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." In McCalmount v. IVIiitaker, 3 Rawle, 90, Gibson, C. J., thus tersely states the rule: "The water-power... | |
 | Law - 1881 - 572 pages
...* * He has no right to interrupt the. regular How of the stream, ¡f he thereby interfore with tho lawful use of the water by other proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." In McCalmounl v. WhitaUer, .'? Rawle, 90, (iibson, C. X, thus tersely states the rule: "The water-power... | |
| |
