Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. McCoy
Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. McCoy
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court—Norton, J. concurring.
This is an action to recover damages, arising from an irregularity
At the trial, the Court excluded the evidence offered by the plaintiffs, to show that the irregularity of the flow of water was a material injury to them, as in consequence of such irregularity they lost their customers, who refused to purchase water from them. In the case above referred to, it was held that a mere temporary or trivial irregularity in the flow of water, such as does not cause actual injury to the proprietor below, would not amount to an actionable injury. The question will turn, in such cases, upon the nature and extent of the injury. In such cases, evidence of the kind offered by the plaintiffs, was clearly admissible, as showing that the damage to the plaintiff was not trivial or temporary, but of such a character as to cause actual and serious injury to him. More pertinent evidence to prove that fact, could hardly be produced. The Court, therefore, erred in excluding it. The fact that the defendants are miners, and hold the water back, causing it to flow irregularly to the plaintiffs, who are prior appropriators of the waters of the stream, does not take the case out of the rule laid down in the case of The Phœnix Water Co. v. Fletcher.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- NATOMA WATER AND MINING CO. v. McCOY
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- The owners of a ditch, by which the -waters of a stream have been first appropriated, are entitled to recover damages for injury or loss sustained, caused by dams or other obstructions having been erected on the stream, above the head of the ditch, by which the regularity of the flow of its waters is so disturbed as to cause actual injury or loss to the proprietors of the ditch. On the trial of an action to recover such damages, proof that in consequence of the irregularity of the flow of water, the owners of the ditch have lost their customers, is competent evidence.