Satterfield v. Rowan

• Decision Date: 06 May 1889
• Citation: 9 S.E. 677,83 Ga. 187
• Parties: SATTERFIELD v. ROWAN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

9 S.E. 677

83 Ga. 187

SATTERFIELD v. ROWAN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 6, 1889

Error from city court of Catersville; NEEL, Judge.

Milner Aiken & Harris and A. S. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

A. W Fite and Shelby Attaway, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS J.

Rowan sued Satterfield, alleging that on May 1, 1884, the defendant erected a dam across a branch on the defendant's own land, which lay on the branch just above the land of plaintiff, and on said day began washing ores on said branch and has continued to do so; that this branch runs through the land of plaintiff; that the washing of the ores rendered its waters unfit for use, the mud and dirt caused thereby making the waters of the branch dirty, filthy, etc., and has so filled the branch with mud and dirt that, in the summer season, the water ceases to run, and during said season a stench arises from the mud which is unhealthy and unpleasant; that this is the only branch of water of any kind running through his land, except a small branch, which only runs a portion of the year; and that the branch in question runs near his dwelling-house, and through his horse lot and fields, and, before the acts of the plaintiff, was used by him for watering his horses and stock, and for other purposes, but that now he is compelled to get water from his well, and the excessive use thereof often exhausts the water and renders it muddy. The defendant pleaded not guilty; also that the use he made of the stream was reasonable, and sanctioned by the usage of the country, of which usage plaintiff is and has always been aware; further, that the stream is of more use and value to the defendant and all adjacent and subjacent riparian owners for the purpose of washing ores than it is to the plaintiff and all subsequent riparian owners for the purpose to which he puts it as alleged in his declaration. The evidence sustained the allegations made in the plaintiff's declaration, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made on many grounds, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted.

The only grounds relied on in argument before us by the counsel for the plaintiff in error for a reversal of the judgment of the court below in refusing to grant a new trial, were the first, sixth, and ninth grounds, which are as follows: (1) That the verdict is contrary to law, evidence, etc. (6) That the court erred in charging as follows: "But the defendant, in using the water of said stream on his land for washing ore, is bound to do so in such manner as not to cause it to flow onto and over plaintiff's land so adulterated as to injure or destroy its reasonable use by plaintiff on his land. Water may be adulterated by mixing with it any other substance or matter which renders it impure or unclean in such degree as to either impair or destroy its value." (9) The court erred in charging thus: "As to what is a reasonable manner of use may depend upon the circumstances of the case. What might be reasonable in one case might be wholly unreasonable in another. If the stream used be in an unsettled country, and no one resides on the stream below the point of use, nor has farm or pastures thereon with cattle or live-stock, or if the stream was mainly useful to every single owner on the stream for washing ore in a mining section of country, so that such was the principal and most valuable use to which the stream could be applied by each and every owner on the stream, then it would not interfere with the enjoyment of the stream below, even if...