Town. Of Gordonsville v. Zinn
Decision Date | 17 March 1921 |
Citation | 106 S.E. 508 |
Parties | TOWN. OF GORDONSVILLE. v. ZINN. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County.
Suit by the Town of Gordonsville against Mrs. Flora M. Zinn. From a decree dismissing the bill, the complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
This is a suit for injunction, instituted by the appellant, the town of Gordonsville, a municipal corporation, against the appellee, Mrs. Flora M. Zinn, the object of which is to perpetually enjoin the latter from with drawing any water whatsoever from the flow of a small nonnavigable stream from a locality on such stream which is above the reservoirs of the town located on the stream, from which reservoirs the town draws its municipal water supply.
There was a demurrer to the bill by the appellee. The court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill; and the questions presented for decision on the appeal arise on the demurrer to the bill.
The material issues and facts, as they appear from the allegations of the bill, are, in substance, as follows:
The town claims, as a lower riparian landowner, to be entitled (under a certain conveyance in 1SS9 from one B. F. Weaver; also under a certain contract in writing, in 1889, with one Alexander Cameron, the adjacent upstream owner of the land on both sides of the stream, including the spring, which is the source of such stream; and by prescription) to all of the water which flows from such spring and would in its natural course flow in said stream from the said Cameron land through the reservoirs of the town, except so much of the water as the said Cameron in his lifetime, and those claiming under him at the time 'of the institution of this suit, were entitled to use as upper riparian landowners with respect to the said stream and spring.
Prior to 1889, and to the construction of its reservoirs by the town, the said Weaver owned a large tract of land on both sides of said stream adjacent to the said Cameron land and immediately below it on such stream. In that year (1889) Weaver from his said larger tract conveyed to the town the parcel of land owned by it located as aforesaid on and so as to embrace both sides of said stream, consisting of one acre, in shape a parallelogram, 249 feet in length along the Cameron line and 175 feet in width. This deed also conveyed to the town "all the water and water rights and * * *. all the privileges appurtenant to said lot of land." This deed was duly recorded in 1889.
The conveyance just mentioned left still belonging to Weaver a considerable tract of land which lay to the south of the Cameron land and the parcel acquired by the town as just stated; the remaining Weaver land being bounded on the west by a portion of the eastern boundary line of the Cameron land for some distance, thence by northern, eastern, and southern boundary lines of the town lot, and thence by the eastern boundary line of the Cameron land again.
In June, 1889, the aforesaid contract in writing between the town and the said Cameron was entered into, which, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
Under the Weaver deed aforesaid, and under and in accordance in all respects with said contract between it and the said Cameron, the town (according to the allegations of the bill), "continuously from the 25th day of June, 18S9, and before, " collected in reservoirs, on its said one-acre parcel of land, all the water which flowed from said Cameron spring, except such as was used on the said Cameron land in supplying the dwelling house and outbuildings of the said Cameron located on said Cameron land with the water there used, drawn from the discharge pipe places provided by the town in accordance with said contract, and the water collected in said reservoirs as aforesaid has been taken by the town and conducted in pipes from said reservoirs for some distance to the town of Gordonsville, and thus diverted from the natural channel of the stream, and has been used for municipal purposes and in supplying the inhabitants of the town with water. That this use of such water by the town has been a necessary use, the water thus taken by the town being all needed for its aforesaid purposes, and that during such period of approximately 30 years before the institution of this suit the said diversion by the town of such quantity of water, collected as aforesaid in its reservoirs, "has been absolute and unrestricted, * * * without restriction, hindrance, or objection, under a valid claim of right, without interruption (and) adversely"; and that "in dry seasons there has been no overflow from the reservoirs of the town, the needs of the town having required every drop of water available from said spring."
The following also appears from the allegations of the bill:
Subsequent to the occurrences above narrated the said Alexander Cameron acquired title to 58 acres of the said residue of the Weaver land and added it to his holding of the original Cameron land aforesaid. This 58 acres lay adjacent to the original Cameron land, extending in a southwesterly direction from the southern end of the town lot, along the eastern line of the original Cameron land in that locality. This 58 acres alsoextended in an easterly direction along the whole of the southern end of the town lot and thence along its eastern side to the said stream and to the east of such lot, so an to constitute a portion, at least, of such 58-ucre parcel, lower riparian land with respect to the town lot and said stream.
The said Cameron did not in his lifetime make any use on said 58-acre parcel of land, for any purpose, of any water taken from said stream above the town lot.
The said Cameron died in 1015, and in 1916, in the partition of his lands among his heirs, the said 58-acre parcel of land became the property of Mrs. Zinn, one of his heirs, and the said original Cameron land became the property of other heirs of said Cameron.
Thereafter the appellee built a handsome residence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town Of Purcellville v. Potts
...who are thereby deprived of the flow. Such a diversion is an extraordinary and not a reasonable use. See Town of Gordonsville v. Zinn, 129 Va. 542, 558, 106 S.E. 508, 14 A.L.R. 318; Roberts v. Martin, 72 W.Va. 92, 77 S.E. 535, 537. In the recent case of Pernell v. City of Henderson, 220 N.C......
- Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Garner
-
Va. Hot Springs Co v. Hoover
...Mass. 83, 103 N. E. 87, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 57, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 768, cited with approval by this court in Gordonsville v. Zinn, 129 Va. 542, 560, 106 S. E. 508, 14 A. L. R. 318, was an action for damages for diversion by an upper riparian owner of water to nonriparian land (the facts there......
-
Va. Hot Springs Co. v. Hoover
...216 Mass. 83, 103 N.E. 87, 49 L.R.A.(N.S.) 57, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 768, cited with approval by this court in Gordonsville Zinn, 129 Va. 542, 560, 106 S.E. 508, 14 A.L.R. 318, was an action for damages for diversion by an upper riparian owner of water to nonriparian land. (The facts there being......
-
ACQUISITION OF WATER FOR ENERGY AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
...flow to water cattle, where other sources of riparian water are available, is unreasonable use); see also Town of Gordonsville v. Zinn, 106 S.E. 508, 513 (1921). [501] Va. Hot Springs Co. v. Hoover, 130 S.E. 408, 410-11 (Va. 1925). [502] Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Compton, 139 S.E. 308, 311 ......