City of Oroville v. Indiana Gold-Dredging Co.

Citations

• 165 F. 550
• 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5409

Syllabus

<p>1. Waters and Water Courses (§ 52*) — Obstruction of Stream — Right to Natural Flow.</p> <p>A company owning a part of the bed of a stream which it is devoting to private purposes is bound to exercise the highest care not to so obstruct the stream as to cause it to overflow and injure property on the hanks in cases of freshets, which, although unusual, are known to have occurred in the past and are to be anticipated. Such freshets cannot be considered acts of God nor extraordinary floods.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Cent. Dig. § 44; Doc. Dig. § 52.*]</p> <p>2. Waters and Water Courses (§ 61*) — Obstructing Natural Flow op Stream — Injunction .</p> <p>Defendant was dredging for gold in the bottom of a river in such manner as to leave a ridge of gravel, sand, and stones across a large part of the stream from 10 to 30 feet in height above the level of the bed of the stream, and obstructing its flow at a point opposite the site of complainant city, and increasing the danger of overflow, which had on two occasions within 50 years caused great damage to property in the city. Held, that the danger to the public health and welfare from such obstruction was such as to entitle complainant to an injunction to restrain the extension of the work in such manner as to increase the obstruction.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Dec. Dig. I 61.*]</p>