The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1919-02-27
tain an action"

tain an action"
The mine owners liability might be
expressed in another way, as il was
explained by the Louisiana court. II
a man buys lower land he is bound in
statutory servitude to receive the
natural drainage of the higher land,
provided that no agency of man has
been used to make that servitude
more burdensome to him. But IL the
mine operator takes water and other
substances out of his mine and dis
charges it upon his own land, then he
is bound to confine it there; or to so
care for it that it will do no injury
to the land >or property of another 1t
was held that the burden to perform
this duty is assumed by the mine
owner or operator as soon as he
brings water or other substance to
the surface and discharges it upon his
land, having notice in advance that 1t
will naturally seek the lower level
and reach the land of another.
In Maine it was said that the mere
fact that one has conveyed land to
another with knowledge that it is to
be used for slate quarry will not
estop him from demanding damages
due to the discharge of water and
rocks upon his own land. There the
mere fact that the plaintiff had grant
ed the quarry to another can not be
taken to confer the right upon the
owner of the quarry to make an il
legal use of it so as to injure the
grantor. Nor was the conveyance to
be regarded as a waiver of damages
in working the quarry, even though
the grantor knew that it was to be so
used by the purchaser.
A California case was based upon
slightly different facts. The mine
owner caused water to flow over the
land of another, when it was shown
that it would not naturally have flow
Ell over his land, in obedience to the
law of gravitation. The court held
that the owner Of the lower land was
entitled to an injunction to, prevent
further damage. and to damages for
the injury already done if it was
shown that the circumstances did not
authorize or justify the mine owner
to cause the water to so reach the
land of the lower owner.
In another California case the court
said that the rule is general that
when one brings foreign substance
on his land, he must take care of 1t,
and not permit it to injure his neigh
Dor, even at expense to himself. The
facts in this case showed that only
slight expense was necessary to pre-
vent injury to the neighboring land.
I'm a Pennsylvania case, it was held
that if an upper land owner, by
pumping, increased the amount OF
water which would naturally flow up
on the land of another, and, by arti-
fetal means, concentrated 1t at one
point, that he was prima facie liable
for damages.
In an Indiana case. the mine opera
tor admitted that he had pumped wa
ter from his mine so that it would in
crease the natural flow upon the low
er alnd owner, but attempted to JUS
tify such action"upon the ground that
it was only the reasonable conse-
uuence of his right to the use and en-
joyment of his own premises. The
court held that the question of whe-
Their he had been guilty of negligence
in so acting was one for the jury to
determine.
In another Indiana case, it was
contended that the increased flow OF
water was only the consequence of a
reasonable use of the land in carry
ing out the mining operations, and
therefore justifiable The court said
that while lower land is subservient
to the natural drainage flow of high
er land, and such reasonable contain
nation as might occur in a reasonable
use Of said land, yet the lower land Is
not servient to unreasonable artificial
flowage, and If the injuries could have
been prevented by the mine owner at
considerable cost to himself, as the
evidence seemed to indicate, then he
-