Hindman v. Rizor
Oregon Supreme Court
Plaintiff appeals. The maxim of the law which this defendant and every riparian proprietor is bound'to respect, as regards his rights to the water, is to use it so as not to damage another. (Shrews-bury v. Smith, 12 Cush. 177; Ang. Waters and Water Courses, 7 ed. § 97; Davis v. Winslow, 51 Me. 291; 81 Am.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff appeals. The maxim of the law which this defendant and every riparian proprietor is bound'to respect, as regards his rights to the water, is to use it so as not to damage another. (Shrews-bury v. Smith, 12 Cush. 177; Ang. Waters and Water Courses, 7 ed. § 97; Davis v. Winslow, 51 Me. 291; 81 Am. Dee. 573; Embrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 353.) A riparian proprietor has the right to use the waters of a stream, and divert its waters, if he. does not do so to a material and appreciable degree and leaves sufficient for the use of other riparian proprietors, but not to such extent as to…
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
This is a suit to enjoin the defendant from diverting the waters of Alder creek, a natural watercourse, which runs through the lands of both plaintiff and defendant. Both parties claim by prior appropriation.
The facts are these: In 1863 the lands through which *115Alder creek flows were unsurveyed and unoccupied government land, and the waters thereof were free and unappropriated. In the spring of that year, J. W. Cleaver and one Peters settled upon the land now owned by plaintiff; and for the purpose of rendering it productive and useful for agricultural and horticultural purposes, entered upon…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Cave v. CraftsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Kitcherside v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1881
- McDonald v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Smith v. O'haraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Nevada Ditch Co. v. BennettOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
- Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Frank v. HicksWyoming Supreme Court · 1894
- Low v. SchafferOregon Supreme Court · 1893
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.