Stephens v. City of Eugene
Oregon Supreme Court
From Lane: James W. Hamilton, Judge. Department 1. The plaintiff is the owner of land through which runs a slough originally debouching from the McKenzie Kiver but now closed from that stream, except in floods, by gravel washed in by the water. Before the defendant’s advent in the vicinity, at the usual stage on the plaintiff’s land the slough carried a flow of about sixteen inches in depth derived from springs and surface water brooks.
Read the full summary
From Lane: James W. Hamilton, Judge. Department 1. The plaintiff is the owner of land through which runs a slough originally debouching from the McKenzie Kiver but now closed from that stream, except in floods, by gravel washed in by the water. Before the defendant’s advent in the vicinity, at the usual stage on the plaintiff’s land the slough carried a flow of about sixteen inches in depth derived from springs and surface water brooks. The plaintiff’s buildings are on the north side, and his fields on the south side of the waterway in question. Ordinarily he obtained access to his farm land…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
1-3. It clearly appears that the plaintiff is a riparian owner of land abutting upon the slough in question, on both banks thereof. As such, he has the right to have the water flow through his premises as it was naturally accustomed to flow. Without compensation being first assessed and tendered, no one has any right to increase materially the constant flow of the water to the damage of the lower riparian owner. Such action constitutes a continual trespass and properly may be enjoined at the suit of the injured party. It is this principle which is the ground work of cases like Hallock v.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Transportation Co. v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Fleming v. LockwoodMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Howell v. Big Horn Basin Colonization Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1905
- Hallock v. SuitorOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Micelli v. AndrusOregon Supreme Court · 1912
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hillman v. Northern Wasco County PUDOregon Supreme Court · 1958
- Tomasek v. Oregon State Highway CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- LEVENE ET UX. v. City of SalemOregon Supreme Court · 1951
- Blue v. City of UnionOregon Supreme Court · 1938
- Minto v. Salem Water, Light & Power Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.