Helfrich v. Catonsville Water Co.

• Citation: 22 A. 72,74 Md. 269
• Parties: HELFRICH v. CATONSVILLE WATER CO.
• Decision Date: 16 June 1891
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

22 A. 72

74 Md. 269

HELFRICH v. CATONSVILLE WATER CO.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 16, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Baltimore county, in equity.

Luther M. Reynolds and George R. Willis for appellant.

Edwin J. Farber and John I. Yellott, for appellee.

BRYAN J.

The Catonsville Water Company was incorporated by the act of 1886, c. 100. It was chartered for the purpose of enabling it to supply with pure water the inhabitants of Catonsville and the adjoining portion of Baltimore county. In pursuance of its charter, it has acquired a tract of land, and constructed at large expense a dam and reservoir, water-works, mains, and pipes, and is engaged in supplying a large number of people with water for drinking and other necessary purposes. A pure, clear, natural stream of fresh water flows through and along the land of Samuel D. Helfrich, and through the land of the water company, which is situate about 140 perches further down the stream, and is the principal source of supply for the purposes of the company's business. A bill of complaint was filed by the water company, on the equity side of the circuit court of Baltimore county, in which it was alleged that Helfrich permitted a large number of his cows to enter said stream and stand therein, and that they dropped their excrement, dung, and filth into its waters, and greatly polluted and befouled them; and that in consequence of such deposits, when the stream flowed through the water company's land and supplied its works, the purity of the water was greatly impaired, and it was rendered unhealthy and unfit for drinking purposes. On these grounds an injunction was prayed and granted restraining Helfrich from permitting cows or other animals to enter or stand in the stream, and to drop or deposit therein any excrement, dung, or filth, or in any manner to pollute or befoul it. The injunction, as granted, also prohibited the erection of a hydraulic ram but, as we shall see, this question is not now presented by the record. After answer and testimony, the court, on final hearing, made the injunction perpetual so far as it related to the pollution of the stream, and dissolved it as to the erection of the hydraulic ram. The defendant appealed to this court. Helfrich's lot is on the south side of the Frederick turnpike, about one mile west of the village of Catonsville, and about half a mile from the water company's property. The lot has been used by the owner as a pasture for his cows, and, so far as the evidence shows, it seems to be well adapted for such a purpose, being well provided with shade, grass, and water. Helfrich, at the time the injunction was issued, owned six cows, and it appears that he used his lot for the purpose of pasturing them in the way a proprietor, under ordinary circumstances, might reasonably use his own property. The question seems to be whether his rights have been in any way abridged or diminished by the incorporation of the water company and the construction of its works. The rights of riparian owners are well understood, and there is a general concurrence of opinion in the courts as to the manner in which they must...