Macomber v. Godfrey
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the diversion of a watercourse by the defendant, whereby the water was prevented from flowing through the plaintiffs’ land and irrigating their crops.
Read the full summary
Tort for the diversion of a watercourse by the defendant, whereby the water was prevented from flowing through the plaintiffs’ land and irrigating their crops. Trial in the superior court, before Scudder, J., who made the following report thereof: “ The plaintiffs’ counsel, in his opening to the jury, stated that the evidence would show that from time immemorial a natural stream of water had flowed from a southerly direction across the road and upon the defendant’s land, taking a northwesterly course across the defendant’s land; that for a part of the way across the same it ran in a well…
1Opinion of the Court
Chapman, O. J.
The defendant admits the well established principle, that, where there is a natural watercourse, each successive riparian proprietor has a right of property in it, and may maintain an action against one who diverts it from coming down to his land. But he contends that the facts stated in the report are not sufficient to establish the existence of such a watercourse. This is the only point now presented to us.
We cannot doubt that water, which has flowed from time immemorial in a well defined channel till it comes upon the defendant’s land, and again after it has passed a short…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gillett v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
3Cited by27 opinions
- Mitchell v. BainIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- O'Connell v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Case v. HoffmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Hamlet Hay Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Hunt v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.