 | New Jersey. Court of Chancery - 1903 - 930 Seiten
...purpose of a mill or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right to intercept the regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interferes...proprietors and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." This I understand to be the doctrine of Higgins v. Flcmington Water Works Co., 9 Stew. Eg. 538. The... | |
 | George Valentine Yool - 1863 - 308 Seiten
...this condition he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation.' But he has no right to interrupt the...proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." If the stream begins to flow in a defined channel directly it springs from the ground, these principles... | |
 | Québec (Province), Andrew Robertson - 1864 - 548 Seiten
...below him. Subject to this condition, he may dam up the stream for the purposes of a mill, or direct the water for the purposes of irrigation. But he has...water by other proprietors, and inflicts upon them a serious injury. Semble, That for the purposes of this case, it docs not appaar that any material distinction... | |
 | Thomas Campbell Foster, William Francis Finlason - 1864 - 998 Seiten
...to this condition he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert it for the purpose of irrigation; but he has no right to interrupt the...proprietors and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." That was the law on the subject. Now, in that judgment it was not said that the owner of the land through... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer - 1867 - 468 Seiten
...purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right to intercept the regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interferes...proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." According to the law so enunciated, and which no doubt is the law, it would be competent for Mr. Bagshaw,... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer - 1868 - 778 Seiten
...condition, he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right to interrupt the...proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." According to the law so enunciated, and which no doubt is the law, it would be competent for Mr. Bagshawe... | |
 | South Australia. Supreme Court - 1868 - 202 Seiten
...this condition, he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation ; but he has no right to interrupt the...proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." Some exception was taken to this statement of the law in the more recent case of Lord Norbury v. Kitchin,... | |
 | 1884 - 550 Seiten
...condition, he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But he has no right to interrupt the...proprietors and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." Since these decisions, the dicta of Tindal, CJ, in Liygins v. Inge, 7 Bing. 682, cited above, can no... | |
 | 1881 - 572 Seiten
...below him. * * He has no right to interrupt tho regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interfere with the lawful use of the water by other proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." In McCalmount v. IVIiitaker, 3 Rawle, 90, Gibson, C. J., thus tersely states the rule: "The water-power... | |
 | 1881 - 572 Seiten
...* * He has no right to interrupt the. regular How of the stream, ¡f he thereby interfore with tho lawful use of the water by other proprietors, and inflicts upon them a sensible injury." In McCalmounl v. WhitaUer, .'? Rawle, 90, (iibson, C. X, thus tersely states the rule: "The water-power... | |
| |
Subject to this condition, he may dam up the stream for the purpose of a mill, or divert the water for the purpose of irrigation. But, he has no right to interrupt the regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interferes with the lawful use of the water... 
