Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-352-Waters-and-watercourses.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:12:07+00:00

Document:
App. Cas. 155; Pollock, Torts (6th Ed.) 399, note.
25. See ante, Sec. 338.
26. Goddard, Easements, 265; 2 Wood, Nuisances, Sec. 704 et seq. Sturges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch. Div. 852; Dana v. Valentine, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 8; Matthews v. Stillwater Gas etc. Co., 63 Minn. 493, 65 N.
27. Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter, 3 Hurl. & C. 300; Wood v. Waud, 3 Exch. 748; Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mason, 397, Fed. Cas. No. 14312; Village of Dwight v. Hayes, 150 111. 273, 41 Am. St. Rep. 367, 37 N. E. 218; Crosby v. Bessey, 49 Me. 539. 77 Am. Dec. 271; Warner v. Cushman, 82 Me. 168, 19 Atl. 159; Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Salisbury, 152 Mass. 346, 25 N. E. 724; Smith v. City of Sedalia, 152 Mo. 283, 48 L. R. A. 711, 53 S. W. 907; Lov-erin v. Walker, 44 N. H. 489; Holsman v. Boiling Spring Bleaching Co., 14 N. J. Eq. 335, 346; Provost v. Calder, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 517; Winchester v. Osborne, 61 N. Y. 555; Geer v. Durham Water Co., 127 N. C. 349, 37 S. E. 474; Talbot v Joseph, 78 Ore. 308, 155 Pac. 184; Mccallum v. German-town Water Co., 54 Pa. St. 40; Messinger's Appeal, 109 Pa. St.
- Right to take water from spring. Not infrequently the owner of land on which there is a spring or well grants to a neighboring land owner the privilege of taking water therefrom, usually by means of a pipe or conduit.30a In such a case, if the water can be regarded as belonging to the owner of the land, the grantor, there is, it appears, the grant of a profit a prendre,30b while if the water is publici juris, that is, belongs to no one, the grant is merely of the privilege of taking it across the grantor's land, of an easement merely.
285, 4 Atl. 162; Olney v. Fenner, 2 R. I. 211, 57 Am. Dec. 711; Rood v. Johnson, 26 Vt. 64.
A privilege in a riparian owner to divert or pollute the water of the stream is not strictly an easement in the land of the owner who suffers by such diversion or pollution, it has been said, since it involves no use of the latter's land, or restriction of its use. Cockburn, C. J., in Mason v. Shrewsbury & H. Ry Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 578; Geer v. Durham Water Co., 127 N. C. 349; 37 S. E. 474. It does, however, involve the privilege of doing an act to the detriment of such land, that is, of depleting the water flowing thereby, and the statement referred to would seen unduly to narrow the definition of an easement. See article by Professor Wesley N. Hohfield, 27 Yale Law Journ. 66.
(Mass.) 370: Turner v. Hart, 71 Mich. 128, 15 Am. St. Rep. 243, 38 N. W. 890; Cornwell Mfg Co. v. Swift, 89 Mich. 503, 50 N. W. 1001; Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 500, 35 L. R. A. 743, 60 Am. St. Rep. 491, 67 N. W. 1022; Winnipiseo-gee Lake Co. v. Young, 40 N. H. 420; Tabor v. Bradley, 18 N. Y. 113, 72 Am. Dec. 498; State v. Suttle, 115 N. C. 784, 20 S. E. 725; Bobo v. Wolf, 18 Ohio St. 463; Campbell v. Mccoy, 31 Pa. St. 263; Weed v. Keenan, 60 Vt. 74, 6 Am. St. Rep. 93, 13 Atl. 804.
29. Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 349, 2 Gray's Cas. 12; Whitehead v. Parks, 2 Hurl. & N. 870; Johnstown Cheese Mfg. Co. v. Veghte, 69 N. Y. 16, 25 Am. Rep. 125; Davis v. Spaulding, 157 Mass. 431, 19 L. R. A. 102, 32 N. E. 650.
30. Wright v. Willams, 1 Mees. & W. 77; Gregory v. Bush, 64 Mich. 37, 8 Am. St. Rep. 797, 31 N. W. 90; Phinizy v. City Council of Augusta, 47 Ga. 260; Ross v. Mackeney, 46 N. J. Eq. 140, 18 Atl. 685; Louisville & N. Ry. Co. v. Mossman, 90 Tenn. 157, 25 Am. St. Rep.. 670, 16 S. W. 64.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.