Court Opinion

ID: 9808406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:37:18.69074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:07.609267
License: Public Domain

BeowN, J.,
concurring in result: All the evidence in this record is to the effect that the property sought to be condemned by plaintiff is a water-power owned jointly by plaintiff and defendant as opposite riparian owners. I do not think the water can be legally divided except by mutual consent of both owners, as that would be to greatly diminish the value of the power as a whole. ,
In this respect I think the law is correctly stated in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Allen. It may be that in the case of very large, powerful and navigable streams, such as the Mississippi, the Niagara, and others, and under the authority of special local statutes, such division and diversion of the water may be both practicable and legal. But no such conditions exist here.
I concur in the judgment of the Court submitting a proper issue to the jury to determine the fact as to whether the defendant is using or holding this water-power to be used or developed for use in connection with or addition to any power actually used by it.
An examination of the authorities convinces me that the opposite riparian owner cannot be permitted to build a dam to the middle of the stream and divert the water through a flume, to the injury of the opposite riparian owner. If the water can be utilized in no other way, then it is not such water-power that, under the statute, is not subject to condemnation.