Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-524-Necessity-of-right-of-action.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:23:41+00:00

Document:
In order that a right of using another's land be acquired by lapse of time, the user must have been such as to give rise to a right of action on the part of the owner, since, if he cannot legally protect himself against the user, no inference can be drawn from his failure to do so.9 Provided a right of action exists on account of the user of the land, the fact that there is, by such user, merely an infringement of the right of property, and no actual damage to the land, does not prevent the running of the prescriptive period.10 And so it has been held that one may acquire by prescription, as against a lower riparian owner, the right to divert water from the stream, although such a lower owner has, during the prescrip9. Stouts Mountain Coal & Coke Co. v. Ballard, 195 Ala. 283, 70 So. 172; Miller & Lux v. Enterprise Canal & Land Co., 169 Cal. 415, 147 Pac. 567; Whiting v. Gaylord, 66 Conn. 337, 50 Am. St. Rep. 87, 34 Atl. 85; Mitchell v. City of Rome, 49 Ga. 19; Gilmore v. Driscoll, 122 Mass. 199, 207; Turner v. Hart, 71 Mich. 128, 15 Am. St. Rep. 243, 38 N. W. 890; Roe v. Howard County, 75 Neb. 448, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 831, 106 N. W. 587; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439, 9 Am. Rep. 276; Carlisle v. Cooper, 19 N. J. Eq. 256; Emery v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 102 N. C. 210, 11 Am. St. Rep. 727, 9 S. E. 139; Wimer v. Simmons, 27 Ore. 1, 50 Am. St. Rep. 685, 39 Pac. 6; Williams v. Haile Gold Min. Co., 85 S. C. 1, 7, 66 S. E. 117, 1057; St. Martin v. Skamania Boom Co., 79 Wash. 393, 140 Pac. 355; Eells v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 49 W. Va. 65, 87 Am. St. Rep. 737, 38 S. E. 479.
6. Chalker v. Dickinson, 1 Conn. 384, 6 Am. Dec. 250; Day v. Day, 4 Md. 262; Lakeman v. Burnham, 7 Gray (Mass.) 437; Hume v. Rogue River Packing Co., 51 Ore. 237, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 396, 131 Am. St. Rep. 732, 83 Pac. 391, 92 Pac. 1065, 96 Pac. 865; Sloan v. Biemiller, 34 Ohio St. 492.
7. Stillman v. White Rock Mfg. Co., 3 Woodb. & M. (U.
S.) 538; Cave v. Crafts. 53 Cal. 135; Trenton Water Power Co. v. Raff. 36 N. J. L. 335; Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Tex. 304.
8. See Lehigh Valley R. Co. v Mcfarlan, 43 N. J. L. 605. 622. In Montecito Valley Water Co. v. Santa Barbara, 144 Cal. 578, 77 Pac. 1113. it is said that peaceable in this connection means uninterrupted.
So it has been held that prescription commenced to run in favor of a right to overflow another's land, not upon the erection of the appliance or structure, which ultimately caused the overflow, but only when the overflow began. Galbreath v. Hopkins, 159 Cal. 297, 113 Pac. 174; Dutton v. Stoughton, 79 Vt. 361, 65 Atl. 91; Hume v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 192 Mich. 225, 158 N. W. 840.
10. Heilbron v. Fowler Switcn Canal Co., 75 Cal. 426, 7 Am. St. Rep. 183, 17 Pac. 535; Mott v. Ewing, 90 Cal. 231, 27 Pac. 194; Bolivar Mfg. Co. v. Neponset Mfg. Co., 16 Pick. (Mass.) 241; Dana v. Valentine, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 8; Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend (N. Y.) 309; Tootle v. Clifton, 22 Ohio St. 247, 10 Am. Rep. 732; Olney v. Fenner, 2 R. I. 211, 57 Am. Dec. 711; Mally v. Weidensteiner, 88 Wash. 398, 153 Pac. 342.
The question whether a prescriptive right can be acquired as against a reversioner or remainderman would ordinarily depend upon whether the user is such as to give him a right of action in spite of the fact that the seems to be regarded as necessary even in other cases. Crosby v. Bessey, 49 Me. 539, 77 Am. Dec. 271; Lockwood Co. v. Lawrence, 77 Me. 297, 52 Am. Rep. 763.
11. Bolivar Mfg. Co. v. Nepon-set Mfg. Co., 16 Pick. (Mass.) 241; Olney v Fenner, 2 R. I. 211. 57 Am Dec. 711; Messinger's Appeal, 109 Pa. 285; Cape v. Thompson, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 681. But occasionally a contrary view appears to have been applied as regards prescription against a riparian owner. See Anaheim Water Co. v. Semi Tropic Water Co., 64 Cal. 185, 30 Pac. 623; Meng v. Coffey, 67 Neb. 500, 60 L. R. A. 713, 108 Am. St. Rep 697, 93 N. W. 713; Red water Land & Canal Co. v. Jones, 27 S. D. 194, 130 N. W. 85; Martin v. Burr - Tex. Civ. App. - , 171 S. W. 1044. See the query in this regard in Wiel Water Rights in the Western States (2nd Ed.) 380. A like view has been asserted as regards a right to take water from another's spring, to the effect that it was not established by the long continued taking of the water, if the owner of the spring had all the water which he needed. Jobling v. Tut-tle, 75 Kan. 351, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 960, 89 Pac. 699.
As against a prior appropria-tor, as distinguished from a riparian owner, prescription runs only when the prescriptive claimant so uses the water as actually to deprive the prior appropria-tor of some part of the water to which he is entitled under his appropriation and which is needed by him. Egan v. Estrada.
6 Ariz. 248. 56 Pac. 721; Church v. Stillwell, 12 Colo. App. 43. 54 Pac. 395; Brossard v. Morgan.
7 Idaho, 215, 61 Pac. 1031; Tal-bott v. Butte City Water Co.. 29 Mont. 17, 73 Pac. 1111; Smith v. Duff, 39 Mont. 102 Pac. 381; Ison v. Sturgill, 57 Ore. 109, 109 Pac. 579, 110 Pac. 535; Henderson v. Gaforth. 34 S. D. 441. 148 N. W. 1045; Miller v. Wheeler, 54 Wash. 429, 103 Pac 641; Samler v Bull, 76 Wash. 1, 135 Pac. 489.
12. So it is said in Watts v. Spencer, 51 Ore. 262, 94 Pac. 39 that there is no adverse user until the owner is deprived of the benefits of the use of the water in such a substantial manner as to know that his right is invaded.
13. See Phillips v. Phillips. 186 Ala. 545, 65 So. 49; Reimer v Stuber, 20 Pa. St. 458; Cunningham v. Dorsey, 3 W. Va. 293. Pentland v. Keep, 41 Wis. 490.
14 The extent to which a reversioner has such a right is discussed in 2 Tiffany, Landlord & Tenant, Sec. 353.
15. See Gale, Easements (8th Ed.) 215.
16. As in Massachusetts, in the case of a right of way. See Mass. Rev. Laws p. 1260; Ballard v. Demmon, 156 Mass.
17. Cross v. Lewis, 2 Barn. & Cr. 686; Ballard v. Demmon, 156 Mass. 449, 31 N. E. 635; Ward v. Warren, 82 N Y. 265; Stothart v. Hilliard, 19 Ont. 542.
18. Reimer v. Stuber, 20 Pa. St. 458.

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. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.