Redman v. Forman
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 32 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT. The owner of the soil may use as he pleases what is below the surface, and if he chooses to cut off a spring of water below the surface his neighbor has no right to complain, although he may be damaged thereby.
Read the full summary
Case 32 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT. The owner of the soil may use as he pleases what is below the surface, and if he chooses to cut off a spring of water below the surface his neighbor has no right to complain, although he may be damaged thereby. The law recognizes a distinction between a supply of water which comes- from an underground vein, and a stream which flows on the surface, or a stream under the surface so well defined and strong as to become a water-course. (Roath v. Driscoll, 20 Conn., 539; Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass., 230; Greenleaf v. Francis, 18 Pick.,…
1Opinion of the Court
• JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion op the court.
The appellant and appellee own adjoining lands in the county of Clark, and the appellee had been using the water that ran from a spring on appellant’s land that emptied into and filled a pool on ■appellee’s side of the line, and from which the latter watered his stock. The appellant purchased his land of one Groom, and while Groom was the owner, •by the consent of the appellee, a pool was made *216large enough to embrace a portion of the land belonging to each of the adjoining owners; but finding that the spring would not supply both farms- • with…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kraver v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- City of Louisville v. TwayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1944