Jackman v. Mills

• Decision Date: 28 June 1884
• Citation: 137 Mass. 277
• Parties: Charles V. Jackman v. Arlington Mills
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

137 Mass. 277

Charles V. Jackman v. Arlington Mills

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 28, 1884

Argued November 7, 1883 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Essex. Tort, for increasing the water supply of a brook, which was a natural watercourse, and which rose in and ran through land of the defendant to and through the plaintiff's premises and for polluting the waters of the same. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

In 1882, the defendant built four cesspools in private ways on its own land, and from them laid drain pipes to a ten-inch pipe which emptied into a ditch on the defendant's land. This ditch connected with the brook at a point nearly five hundred feet from the land of the plaintiff. The defendant also erected six tenement houses on these private ways, and dug six wells, which were connected by pipes with the houses. After the houses were occupied, the sink water from them passed through the drain pipes and the ditch into the brook. These pipes also carried off the surface water from the defendant's land, which sloped towards the brook. No cisterns were used in connection with the houses, and their privy vaults had no outlet.

The plaintiff contended, and offered evidence tending to prove, that, in consequence of the acts of the defendant, the supply of water in the brook was increased to such an extent as to cause the brook to overflow its banks and a box drain through which it ran on his land, and to flow into the cellar of a house on his land, thereby causing the same to become unwholesome and unfit for habitation, both by reason of the water remaining in the cellar and by reason of the offensive odors arising therefrom.

The defendant introduced evidence tending to prove that for the past three years the plaintiff had maintained a two-story privy in his said house, which was occupied by tenants of the plaintiff, with no vault connected therewith, and that the deposits therefrom went upon the surface of land at the end of the house, which land sloped toward said brook, and that there was nothing around these deposits to obstruct the flow of liquids therefrom.

The defendant contended, and introduced evidence tending to prove, that the tenements on its land were ready for use and occupation in the spring of 1882; that one half of them remained unoccupied during six months of that year; that when used or occupied they were so used and occupied by tenants at will of the defendant; and that the defendant, by the terms of letting, reserved no control over the tenements, or over the manner of their use when occupied or used, and did not agree to make any repairs upon the same.

The defendant requested the judge to instruct the jury as follows:

"1. The defendant had the right to turn all the surface water coming upon its land or private ways, at all seasons of the year, into that portion of the brook which was upon its premises. 2. Independently of the question of pollution, the defendant had the right to turn such water as came from its wells, which were used solely in connection with its tenement-houses for domestic purposes only, into the brook at a point on its premises. 4. The defendant is not responsible for any pollution of the waters of this brook caused by sink water which came from tenement houses owned by the defendant, if the jury find that such houses were at the time let by the defendant to tenants at will or for years, and that the defendant retained no control over said tenements, or the manner of their use, under the terms of letting, during the occupation of such tenants. 5. If the negligence of the plaintiff in maintaining his own privy contributed in any degree to the injuries resulting from offensive odors or the pollution of the waters of the brook, he cannot recover damages sustained by reason of such odors or pollution."

The judge ruled that the doctrine of contributory negligence did not apply to this case upon the questions of pollution of the brook and offensive odors, and declined to give either of the foregoing requests for instructions; and instructed the jury as follows:

"An owner of land has a right to occupy and improve it, in such manner and for such purposes as he may think fit, either by changing its surface, or by erecting buildings or other structures, or by laying out roads thereon; and this right is not restricted or modified by the fact that his own land is so situated, in its relation to land adjoining, that an alteration in the mode of his improvement and occupation of his own land will cause water, which may accumulate thereon by rains or melting snows falling on its surface or flowing upon it over the surface of adjoining lands, to flow to and stand in unusual quantities on adjoining lands, or pass into and over the same in greater quantities or in other directions than such waters would naturally flow and were accustomed to flow. No right to regulate or control the surface drainage of water can be asserted, by the owner of one lot of land, over the right of another owner of adjoining land, in that matter.

"It is a general rule applicable to the use and improvement of land, that the right of a person to the free and unrestrained control of his land, upon, above, and beneath its surface cannot be interfered with or restricted by any consideration of injury to other persons which may be occasioned by the flow of mere surface water in consequence of the lawful appropriation of land by its owner to a particular use or mode of occupation. A person may improve any portion of his land, although he may thereby cause the surface water flowing thereon, wheresoever it may come, to pass off in a different direction and in larger quantities than formerly.

"But an owner of land has no right to a flow of surface water over land adjoining it, by collecting it in drains, culverts, or artificial channels, so as to convert a flow of surface water into a running stream, with all the physical characteristics of a natural watercourse. An unlawful collection of surface water in an artificial channel, and its discharge, by the owner of land upon which such surface water has fallen and in which there is a natural watercourse, upon adjoining land through which the same watercourse flows, whether immediately and directly upon such adjoining land, or its discharge into such natural watercourse in which the water so discharged by artificial means flows to such adjoining land, and so augmenting such natural watercourse as to cause its banks and such adjoining land to be inundated, or to be carried into such natural watercourse polluting or defiling matters mingled with such surface water, which are noxious or offensive, to the injury of the owner of such adjoining land in his use and enjoyment of his land, or in his rights in that natural watercourse, afford him a cause of action in which he may recover adequate damages for such injury.

"The essential of a natural watercourse is a channel with well-defined bed and banks, in which there is a regular and natural, although not...