Hale v. McLea

Citations

• 53 Cal. 578

Syllabus

<p>Eights m Subterranean Stream.—On the facts of this case, as admitted by the pleadings or found by the Court, the defendant could, at most, exercise no greater rights in respect to the diversion or use of the waters of the subterranean stream flowing across his land to the spring of the plaintiff, than if he had been an upper and the plaintiff a lower riparian owner on a surface stream flowing across their respective lands.</p> <p>Same.—On the facts admitted or found, the defendant was not entitled to divert the whole body of the stream.</p> <p>Query as to Upper and Lower Proprietor.—Whether the upper proprietor on a subterranean stream can exercise the same rights as against a lower proprietor in respect to the diversion and use of the water, as though it was a surface stream, not decided.</p> <p>Query as to Cause of Action.—Whether the incidental obstruction or diversion of a subterranean stream, in the prosecution by an upper proprietor of a mining or other legitimate enterprise beneath the surface, can be made the foundation of an action by a lower proprietor, not decided.</p>