Bell v. M'Clintock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In an action for a nuisance created by obstructing a stream made navigable by law, if it appear that the injury to the plaintiff arose from causes which, might have been foreseen, such as ordinary periodical freshets or the collection of ice, he, whose superstructure is the immediate cause of the mischief, shall be liable to damages. But if the injury be occasioned by an act of Providence, which could not have been anticipated, the defendant would not be liable.
Read the full summary
In an action for a nuisance created by obstructing a stream made navigable by law, if it appear that the injury to the plaintiff arose from causes which, might have been foreseen, such as ordinary periodical freshets or the collection of ice, he, whose superstructure is the immediate cause of the mischief, shall be liable to damages. But if the injury be occasioned by an act of Providence, which could not have been anticipated, the defendant would not be liable. ERROR to the common pleas of Venango county. Hamilton M’Clintock against Samuel Bell. Action on the case for a nuisance. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
The general rule of law is, that every man has a right to have the advantage of the flow of water, in its natural 'channel, in his own land. But in using it the owner must so apply the water as to work no material injury or annoyance, to his neighbour either above or below him. The maxim sic utere tuo ut alienurn non Isedas, applies with peculiar propriety to this class of cases. By the act of the 23d of March 1803, Oil Creek is declared a public highway. The owners of the land adjoining the stream *120are authorized to erect dams for mills, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- President for erecting a Bridge over the River Lehigh v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
3Cited by17 opinions
- Inhabitants of Arundel v. M'CullochMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Proctor v. JenningsNevada Supreme Court · 1870
- Borchardt v. Wausau Boom Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Central, Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1893
- Dorman v. AmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1867
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.