Evans v. Merriweather case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
4
Ill. 491
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed from
a judgment of the Greene Circuit Court (Illinois), which rendered a
verdict and judgment for plaintiff for damages in an action on the
case against defendant for obstructing and diverting a water
course.
FACTS: The question was presented as to what extent riparian proprietors, upon a non-navigable stream, could use the water of the stream. The court held that a riparian proprietor, though he had an undoubted right to use the water for hydraulic or manufacturing purposes, had to use it so as to do no injury to any other riparian proprietor. Each riparian proprietor was bound to make such a use of running water as to do as little injury to those below him as was consistent with a valuable benefit to himself. The use had to be a reasonable one.
ISSUE:
The question was whether it was a reasonable use of running water by the upper proprietor to entirely consume the fluid itself.
ANALYSIS:
The facts showed that defendant obstructed the water by a dam and diverted the whole of it into his well. The court held that this diversion was clearly illegal. However, it was contended that defendant forbade the construction of the dam by his servant. After having availed himself of the illegal act of his servant, however, the law presumed that defendant had authorized it. Thus, plaintiff did have an action against defendant for obstructing and diverting the water course.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
FACTS: The question was presented as to what extent riparian proprietors, upon a non-navigable stream, could use the water of the stream. The court held that a riparian proprietor, though he had an undoubted right to use the water for hydraulic or manufacturing purposes, had to use it so as to do no injury to any other riparian proprietor. Each riparian proprietor was bound to make such a use of running water as to do as little injury to those below him as was consistent with a valuable benefit to himself. The use had to be a reasonable one.
ISSUE:
The question was whether it was a reasonable use of running water by the upper proprietor to entirely consume the fluid itself.
ANALYSIS:
The facts showed that defendant obstructed the water by a dam and diverted the whole of it into his well. The court held that this diversion was clearly illegal. However, it was contended that defendant forbade the construction of the dam by his servant. After having availed himself of the illegal act of his servant, however, the law presumed that defendant had authorized it. Thus, plaintiff did have an action against defendant for obstructing and diverting the water course.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment