Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Surface-water-Part-2.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:28:19+00:00

Document:
20. Walshe v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 178 Ala. 310, 59 So. 630; Anderson v. Henderson, 124 111. 164, 16 N. E. 232; Fenton, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 221 111. 201, 112 Am. St. Rep. 171, 77 N. E. 531; Templeton v. Voshloe, 72 Ind. 134, 37 Am. Rep. 150; Parizek v. Hinek, 144 Iowa, 563, 21 L. R. A. 611, 123 N. W. 180; Miller v. Hester, 167 Iowa, 180, 149 N. W. 93; Gregory v. Bush, 64 Mich. 37, 8 Am. St. Rep. 797, 31 N. W. 90; Launstein v. Launstein, 150 Mich. 524, 114 N. W. 383; Shee-han v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 26 L. R. A. 632, 61 N. W. 462; Hopkins v. Taylor, 128 Minn. 511, 151 N. W. 194; Todd v. York County, 72 Neb. 207, 66 L. R. A. 561, 100 N. W. 299; Bailey v. Schnitzius, 53 N. J. Eq. 235, 22 Atl. 732, 32 Atl. 219; Mason v. Commissioners of Fulton County, 80 Ohio St. 151, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 903, 131 Am. St. Rep. 689, 88 N. E. 401; Kauff-man v. Griesemer, 26 Pa. 407; Meixell v. Morgan, 149 Pa. 415, 34 Am. St. Rep. 614, 24 Atl. 216; Thompson v. Andrews, 39 S. D. 477, 165 N. W. 9; Shaw v. Ward, 131 Wis. 646, 111 N. W. 671.
21. Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 26 L. R. A. 632, 61 N. W. 462; Mason v. Commissioners of Fulton County, 80 Ohio St. 151, 88 N. E. 401; Templeton v. Voshloe, 72 Ind. 134, 37 Am. Rep. 150.
22. Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 26 L. R. A. 632, 61 N. W. 462; Rieck v. Schamanski, 117 Minn. 25, 134 N. W. 228; Hughes v. Anderson, 68 Ala. 280, 44 Am. Rep. 147 (with prudent regard to neighbor's welfare); King Land & Improvement Co. v. Bowen, 7 Ala. App. 462, 61 So. 22 (ditto).
23. Aldritt v. Fleischauer, 74 Neb. 66, 70 L. R. A. (N. S.) 301, 105 N. W. 248; Meixell v. Morgan, 149 Pa. 415, 34 Am. St. Rep. 614, 24 Atl. 216 (if no unnecessary injury); Connell v. Stark, 108 Wis. 92, 83 N. W. 1092. (if no material injury).
24. Sheker v. Machovec (la.), 110 N. W. 1055; Obe v. Pattat, 151 Iowa, 723, 130 N. W. 903. See Baldwin v. Ohio Twp., 70 Kan. 102, 67 L. R. A. 642, 109 Am. St. Rep. 414, 78 Pac. 424; Peck v. Good-berlett, 109 N. Y. 180, 16 N. E. 350.
25. Tucson v. Dunseath, 15 Ariz. 355, 139 Pac. 177; Hume v. Des Moines, 146 Iowa, 624, 29 L. R. A. N. S. 126, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 904, 125 N. W. 846; Tretter v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. 147 Iowa, 375, 140 Am. St. Rep. 304, 126 N. W. 339; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 36, 26 L. R. A. 632, 61 N. W. 462; Howard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 114 Minn. 189, 130 N. W. 946; Beatrice v. Leary, 45 Neb. 149, 50 Am. St. Rep. 546, 63 N. W. 370; Norfolk v. Carter, 91 Va. 587, 22 S. E. 517; Jordan v. City of Benwood, 42 W. Va. 312, 36 L. R. A. 519, 57 Am. St. Rep. 859, 26 S. E. 266; Adlingtori v. Viroqua, 155 Wis. 472, 144 N. W. 1130.
26. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Richardson, 42 Okla. 457, 141 Pac. 1107.
27. Post, Sec. 341(d). See remarks of Timlin, J., in Harvie v. Caledonia, 161 Wis. 314, 154 N. W. 383.
28. Southern R. Co. v. Lewis, 165 Ala. 555, 138 Am. St. Rep.
Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Lackay, 72 Miss. 881, 48 Am. St. Rep. 589, 16 So. 909; Rychlicki v. City of St. Louis, 98 Mo. 497, 4 L. R. A. 594, 14 Am. St. Rep. 651, 11 S. W. 1001; Shavlik v. Walla, 86 Neb. 768, 126 N. W. 376; Field v. West Orange, 36 N. J. Eq. US; Bailey v. Wilcox, 86 N. Y. 140, 40 Am. Rep. 519; Rice v. Norfolk & C. R. Co., 130 N. C. 375, 41 S. E. 1031; Butler v. Peck, 16 Ohio St. 334. 88 Am. Dec. 452; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 25 Okla. 760, 27 L. R. A. N. S. 879, 107 Pac. 662; Miller v. Laubach, 47 Pa. St. 154, 86 Am. Dec. 521; Rhoads v. Davidheiser, 133 Pa. St. 226, 19 Am. St. Rep. 630, 19 Atl. 400; Johnson v. White, 26 R. I. 207, 65 L. R. A. 250, 58 Atl. 658; Brandenberg v. Zeigler, 62 S. C. 18, 55 L. R. A. 414, 89 Am. St. Rep. 887, 39 S. E. 790; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Helsley, 62 Tex. 593; Tyrus v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co., 114 Tenn. 579, 86 S. W. 1074; Wead v. St. Johns-bury & L. C. R. Co., 64 Vt. 52, 24 Atl. 361; Noyes v. Cosselman, 29 Wash. 635, 92 Am. St. Rep. 937, 70 Pac. 61; Roshnagel v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 69 Wash. 243, 124 Pac. 900.
In Iowa there is no liability upon the upper owner unless the water is discharged on the lower land "in greatly increased or unnatural quantities to the substantial injury of the latter." Jontz v. Northup, 157 Iowa 6, Ann. Cas. 1915C 967, 137 N. W. 1056. And see to this effect Bailey v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.. 25 S. Dak. 200, 126 N. W. 268. In Minnesota, if a change in the flow upon adjoining land of surface water is a mere incident to the reasonable improvement of the upper land, there is no liability. O'Neill v. St. Paul, 104 Minn. 491, 116 N. W. 1114. And see Aldritt v. Freischauer, 74 Neb. 66, 70 L. R. A. 301, 103 N. W. 1084, for a dictum apparently to this effect.

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. 
 v. 
 v.