Beissell v. Sholl; Wagoner v. Same

*Beissell v. Sholl. Wagoner v. Same. Riparian owners. Every one has a right to use the water passing through his land, as he pleases, provided, he does not injure his neighbor’s mill; and that, after using the water, he returns it to its ancient channel. A riparian owner is only entitled, as against a lower proprietor, to the use of so much of the stream as will not materially diminish its quantity, nor corrupt its quality. Wheatley v. Chrisman, 24 Penn. St. 298. He has no right to pollute the stream so as to render it unfit for domestic purposes. Sanderson v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 86 Id. 401; s. c. 94 Id. 302. But he may use the water for ordinary, reasonable domestic purposes, oven to exhaustion. Slack v. Marsh, 11 Phila, 543. Tried m the circuit court, Northampton county, June 1800, before Shipper, C. J. and Yeates, J. [MAJORITY] Case, for diverting a water-course. The court left the facts to the jury, under this general statement of the law : “ That every man, in this country, has an unquestionable right to erect a mill upon his own land ; and to use the water, passing through his land, as he pleases ; subject only to this limitation, that his mill must not be so constructed and employed, as to injure his neighbor’s mill; and that, after using the water, he returns the stream to its ancient channel.” But the common-law doctrine, that fresh water rivers, in which the tide does not ebb and flow, belong to the owners of the banks, has never been applied to the Susquehanna, and other largo rivers in Pennsylvania. Such rivers are navigable, although there is no flow and reflow of the ti Carson v. Blazer, 2 Binn. 475. s, and they belong to the commonwealth.