Erickson v. Crookston Waterworks, Power & Light Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Polk county, Watts, J., denying a motion to set aside an order granting a motion for judgment in favor of defendant on the pleadings, and also denying a motion for a new trial. The complaint in this action substantially alleged: Plaintiff and appellant is the owner and in possession of certain lots upon which there is an artesian well, from which plaintiff gets water for domestic and other purposes.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Polk county, Watts, J., denying a motion to set aside an order granting a motion for judgment in favor of defendant on the pleadings, and also denying a motion for a new trial. The complaint in this action substantially alleged: Plaintiff and appellant is the owner and in possession of certain lots upon which there is an artesian well, from which plaintiff gets water for domestic and other purposes. It is one of more than a hundred artesian wells in and near Crookston which flow “from water underground strata in that territory, and…
1Opinion of the CourtJaggard, J.
(after stating the facts as above),.
The subject is a comparatively modern one. The first English case dealing with underground waters (Hammond v. Hall, 10 Sim. 552, 4 Jur. 694) was decided in 1840. The case which has become recog-*483iiized as the leading one was Acton, v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324, decided in the Exchequer Chamber in 1843. Tindale, C. J., delivering the opinion of the court, held that percolating subterranean waters were governed by the law applicable, not to water courses, but to surface waters. Dickinson v. Grand (1852) 7 Exch. 301, 21 E. J. Exch. (N. S.) 241, held that the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. EastTexas Supreme Court · 1904
- Sheehan v. FlynnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Forbell v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Roath v. DriscollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Yeo v. TweedyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
- Meeker v. City of East OrangeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
- Horne v. Utah Oil Refining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1921
- Rothrauff Et Ux. v. Sinking Spr. W. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Canada v. City of ShawneeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.