Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/340

This page needs to be proofread.


322

HAR YARD LAW RB VIE W,

flows in an indefinite channel over his land into plaintiff's, and cites the Dudden case. It has been held several times that a defi- nite subterranean watercourse is none the less a watercourse for being subterranean. The spring was a portion of such a water- course. This case tells us nothing about the law of lakes. Gard- ner V. Newburgh^ is similar. Westz/. Taylor^ decides nothing as to Lake Cullaby itself, but only a question between two owners on the outlet, which was an ambiguous sort of thing, apparently with a current, but resembling a swale or surface depression about as much as a brook. One diked it off his land on to the plaintiff. The court held, this outlet on its facts amounted to a watercourse. Shaefer v. Marthaler ^ was an issue between two shore owners on a pond of four and one-half acres (probably private property). The court held that one owner must not drain the pond, thinking it not mere surface water, but a valuable reservoir. They do not decide it to be a watercourse. No outlet miller or riparian on the stream was a party, and we do not know who owned the bottom. This case is an interesting one, as it appears to declare that in Minnesota the abutters on, or owners of, a beautiful pond have some community of interest in it, but does not reach an assertion that the land-holders below have interest too, nor that the commu- nity among stream riparians is the same community as that among pond riparians. The point adjudicated in this case was differently decided in a Massachusetts great pond case.* Hebron Gravel Road Co. V, Harvey^ is also interesting as approaching our topic, but not exactly reaching it. Plaintiff complained of flooding by a dam across a " running stream of water called Lake Headley.'* The court queries whether the " body of water called Lake Head- ley was a running stream, or was it merely surface water } The complaint says it was a large stream of running water, and does not show that it was mere surface water." It is spoken of repeatedly as the "so-called Lake Headley." Instruction to jury was, "if you find its waters at north-east end percolated through gravel so as to reduce its waters with unusual rapidity, so great as to create a drawing or movement of the waters to that end, though imperceptible to ordinary observation, then it was a watercourse." There was evidence that the water passed through the porous g^vel with such rapidity as to create a continuous current from south-

1 Supra^ p. 317, note i. *Fay v, Salem, 11 1 Mass. 27.