Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 River Subject_2 Opus Manufactum in Alveo Subject_3 Pollution Subject_4 Interference with Natural Flow of Stream — Prejudice of Lower Heritors — Interdict.
On the application of the lower heritors the Court ordained the proprietors of the bleachfields to remove the tank, pipes, &c., and to restore the alveus to its former condition, and interdicted them from entering on any similar operations in the future.
Observations by Lord Trayner as to the proper mode of ascertaining the medium filum of a river where it is joined by a tributary.
The respondents answered—“Denied. Explained that the operations complained of were conducted entirely to the south of the medium filum of the Dighty. They could not possibly alter the bed of the river or affect the flow of the water. The water drawn by the respondents was insignificant in amount, and was all returned to the river before it left the respondents' property. The said operations did not and could not produce any greater pollution in the water flowing past the complainers' properties or works than had previously existed.”
The complainers pleaded—“(1) The respondents not being entitled to erect or place any opus manufactum in or upon the alveus of the Dighty ex adverso of their Page: 680 ↓
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.