Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-11-15

widened and deepened said ditch and in
creased the volume of water therein un-
til the safety of said house was endan-
gered, and the free use and comfortable
enjoyment by the respondent of said
premises We're obstructed thereby. 1t
appears that before said enlargement of
the ditch and increase OF the volume of
water, the respondent was not injured or
Inconvenience by said ditch nor by the
appellants use thereof.
1t appears that w. A.. Martin, respon-
dents son-in-law, placed a wooden box,
or three boxes Joined together, in said
ditch, over fifty feet in length along and
by said house in 1886 for the purpose of
remedying said obstruction. There is
evidence tending to show that said boxes
were so placed with the full knowledge
of the appellant at the time and without
objection from her. 1t appears that Mar
tin placed said boxes as aforesaid on his
own melton and at his own expense, the
respondent Directing thereto on the
ground that il was the duty of appellant,
as she claimed. to box up said ditch. 1t
appears that said boxing of said ditch
w dis Il6ceSSdTy 10 TeUltuy Sdlu ttCtlCl
and did so up to the year 1898, when, the
lower section of said boxes having be-
cone decayed SO as to partially obstruct
the flow of water through said ditch to
appellants ranch, the appellant entered
and removed all three sections of the
boxes from SAID ditch, left the ditch open
and flowed water in large quantities
through it to her ranch and thereby again
obstructed and interfered with respon-
dents free use and comfortable enjoy
ment of her said property, and so con-
tinued to do, claiming that it as the
duty of the respondent in the first in
stance to box said ditch as aforesaid, for
her own protection and that it was not
and is not now the duty of the appellant
to box the same
1t appears that at the time said boxes
were placed i'll said ditch, the ditch and
the appellants said use thereof had be-
come a nuisance to the respondent by
reason of the same being an obstruction
and interference with her said use and
enjoyment of said premises and that said
use of said ditch in it's open condition
since the removal of said boxes was, and
a like future use will be, such nuisance,
under Section 1913, General Statutes.
Where the easement is of such a char
acter that a want of repair injuriOusly
affects the owner of the servient land, it
becomes not only the right but the duty
of the owner of the easement to cause all
necessary repairs to be made. As, for in
stance, if one has an aqueduct by pipes
or a gutter across the land of another, he
is Il to keep these in repair, so hat
the wner of the land shall not be dam
aged by want of such repair" wash
burns Easements and S~ervitudes, 3Id Ed
6S6 and Note 81 49,
1.-The burden of the dominant tenement
cannO be enlarged to the manifest injury
of the servient estate by any alteration in
the mode of enjoying the former"
North Fork Water Co. vs.. Ed
wards, III Cal. 662.)
f 1t is the right of both parties to insist
that the easement remain substantially
t as it was at the time of it's acquisition
| e Am. Il Eng. Ency. of Law, las
2 and Note L.
In this case the appellant did not &C
/ Quire a right to increase the width anC
2 depth of said ditch or to increase the vol
ume of the water therein to the extent o
: obstructing the respondents free use anC
; enjoyment of her property as aforesaid
We are of opinion that it was the duty
: of appellant "tO place the boxes in saiC
ditch and keep them in repair
The judgment and order appealed from
are affirmed.
Q We concur: Massey, J.
Belknap, J.
e Filed November 18th, 1899.
EUGENE HOWELL,
Secretary of State and Ex-OtficiO ClerI
4 of the Supreme Court.