Fernald v. Knox Woolen Co.
| Citation | 82 Me. 48,19 A. 93 |
| Parties | FERNALD et al. v. KNOX WOOLEN CO. et al. |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1889 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Report from supreme judicial court, Knox county.
J. H. Montgomery, for plaintiffs. W. H. Fogler and C. E. Littlefield, for defendants.
This is a bill in equity, the prayer of which is that the defendants may be restrained by injunction from drawing off the waters of certain ponds named in the bill below their natural low-water mark.
It appears that the plaintiffs own land bounded on the ponds, and that the defendants own mills on the outlet; and the complaint is that by excavating the channel the defendants are able, in times of drought, to draw down the water in the ponds below their natural low-water line, and that this is a damage to the plaintiffs' land.
We think the injunction prayed for must be granted. We do not think the owners of mills on a stream, flowing from a great natural pond or lake, have a right to lower the outlet, and draw down the water in the pond or lake below its natural low-water line.
Such a right is inconsistent with the existence of the pond as a pond. If exercised to its fullest extent, it would destroy the pond. All the water might be drawn out, and its bed left dry, a mere stream of running water only remaining. And, if exercised to any extent, the necessary effect must be to widen the shores, and deprive the adjoining land-owners of their natural water frontage; for it is the settled law of this state that lands bounded on a great pond or lake extend only to the natural low-water line, and that all beyond is owned by the state; and this natural water frontage may be as valuable to the land-owner as the right to draw water is to the mill-owner. But, whether of equal value or not, it is of equal validity in law, and entitled to equal protection.
This precise question was recently considered in Massachusetts, and the court held that the water of a great pond could not be lawfully drawn down below its natural low-water line; that such a use of the water would be unreasonable; that great ponds belong to the public; that to draw down the water below its natural level is inconsistent with the common right to the use of the pond as a pond; that for such an abstraction of the water an information or an indictment would undoubtedly lie for the public wrong; and that an adjoining land-owner thereby deprived of his natural water frontage could obtain redress by injunction. Potter v. Howe, 141 Mass. 357, 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indian Refining Co. v. Ambraw River Drainage Dist.
...bill of complaint is reversed, and a decree will be entered enjoining the proposed deepening of the river." In Fernald v. Knox Woolen Co., 19 A. 93, 82 Me. 48, 7 L. R. A. 459, the court said: "It appears that the plaintiffs own land bounded on the ponds, and that the defendants own mills on......
-
In re Opinions of the Justices
...and regulate the waters thereof. Barrows v. McDermott, 73 Me. 441; Brastow v. Mockport Ice Co., 77 Me. 100; Fernald v. Knox Woolen Co., 82 Me. 56, 19 Atl. 93, 7 L. R. A. 459; Auburn v. Water Power Co., 90 Me. 584, 38 Atl. 561, 38 L. R. A. 188; Conaut v. Jordan, 107 Me. 227, 77 Atl. 938, 31 ......
-
Smedberg v. Moxie Dam Co.
...434; In re Opinion of Justices, 118 Me. 503, 106 A. 865; Brown v. De-Normandie, 123 Me. 535, 124 A. 697. In Fernald v. Knox Woolen Co., 82 Me. 48, 19 A. 93, 7 L.R.A. 459, a littoral owner obtained an injunction against drawing down the water of a lake by deepening the outlet. It was held th......
-
Iron Co. v. Hyland
......531; Chapman v. Rochester, 110. N.Y. 273; Amsterdam Knitting Co. v. Dean, 56 N.E. 757;. Fernald v. Woolen Co., 82 Me. 48; 7 L.R.A. 459; Mann v. Willey, 64 N.Y.S. 589; 168 N.Y. 664; 61 N.E. 1131; ......