The Village of Delhi v. . Youmans
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Robb v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1941)
- Willow Creek Irrigation Co. v. Michaelson (Utah 1900)
- Bloodgood v. . Ayers (N.Y. 1888)
- County of Erie v. Friedenberg (New York Supreme Court 1916)
- Deadwood Cent. R. v. Barker (S.D. 1901)
- Crescent Mining Co. v. Silver King Mining Co. (Utah 1898)
- Bower v. Big Horn Canal Ass'n. (Wyo. 1957)
- George v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1954)
- Couch v. Clinchfield Coal Corp. (Va. 1927)
- Flanigan v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1920)
- County of Erie v. . Fridenberg (N.Y. 1917)
- Schenk v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. 1917)
- Meeker v. City of East Orange (N.J. 1909)
- Herriman Irrigation Co. v. Keel (Utah 1902)
- Miller v. Black Rock Springs Improvement Co. (Va. 1901)
- Forbell v. . City of New York (N.Y. 1900)
- Case v. Hoffman (Wis. 1898)
- Letts v. Kessler (Ohio 1896)
- Wyandot Club Co. v. Sells (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division 1896)
- Metcalf v. Nelson (S.D. 1895)
- Davis v. Spaulding (Mass. 1892)
- Reed v. . the State (N.Y. 1888)
- Dillon v. Acme Oil Co. (New York Supreme Court 1888)
- Van Wycklen v. City of Brooklyn (New York Supreme Court 1886)
- Bloodgood v. Ayers (New York Supreme Court 1885)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
If the action of the defendant took the water away from the springs, after it had reached there, after it had become part of an open, running stream, then this action would lie. (Rawstron v. Taylor, 33 Eng. L. & Eq., 428; Broadbent v. Ramsbotham, 34 id., 553; Chasemore v. Richards, 7 House of Lords Cases, 349; Pixley v. Clark, 35 N. Y., 520; Goodale v. Tuttle, 29 id., 459; Ellis v. Duncan., 21 Barb., 230, affirmed in this court, but not reported.)
But if it merely prevent the water from reaching the spring or open, running stream, by intercepting its percolation or underground currents, by digging a well upon the defendant’s own land, for the use of his family and stock, this action will not lie. The law is settled in that way, both here and in England. (See same cases.)
The facts in this case, as found by the justice who tried it, do not show that the water has been taken away from the spring or running surface stream after it had reached there. On the contrary, the inference from his findings would rather seem the other way. Hor is there any request to find otherwise, nor any exception on that point.
Every inference and presumption that can be reasonably entertained must be indulged in favor of affirming a judgment. It is a well-settled rule that the party who alleges error must show it.
*364 The doctrine of lateral support of adjoining l'and, cannot aid the plaintiffs’ case. I do not think it has any application to the facts as found.
It may well be that the plaintiffs have been injured, legally injured, by the acts of the defendant. But the facts as found do not make it appear. In the absence of any request to find, or exception to refusal to find, other facts, we. cannot consider the evidence with a view to decide whether other facts may not be regarded as sufficiently proved.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.