Wallace v. City of Winfield
Citations
- 96 Kan. 35
- 149 P. 693
- 1915 Kan. LEXIS 311
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Watercourse — Mill Dam — Rights Acquired by Prescription. One who builds and maintains a dam may acquire flowage rights by prescription, and if the dam has been maintained for more than fifteen years a presumption of a grant or of consent by the upper riparian owners arises and gives the owner of the dam a right to its continued maintenance to the extent to which the right has been enjoyed for the period of prescription.</p> <p>2. Same — Rights of City to Water as against a Lower Proprietor. The fact that a city which has purchased a small tract of land on a stream and become a riparian owner is undertaking to supply the inhabitants of the city with water and has expended large sums of money in the erection of a water plant gives such owner no special or additional rights to the water of a stream as against a lower proprietor or one who has acquired prescriptive rights to the unobstructed flowage of the stream.</p> <p>3. Same — City Has no Right to Take Water from Stream to Sell without Making Compensation. A city which, purchases land abutting on a stream acquires the right of a riparian owner, which is the reasonable use of water for domestic and other ordinary purposes incident to the land, but it does not thereby acquire the right to divert or take water from the stream for the purpose of selling it to the inhabitants of the city without making compensation to those who are thereby deprived of water rights.</p> <p>4. Same — City May Not Obstruct the Flow and Diminish the Power of a Stream Belonging to a Mill Owner without Compensation to Him. The fact that a city has obtained the right to take water from a stream to supply its inhabitants at a point above the city does not give it the right to build a dam at a point considerably below the authorized intake in order to obtain water for the supply of its inhabitants, the place being within the mill pond of a lower proprietor of a mill and where the proposed dam would materially
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “This evidence was not newly-discovered. The defendant had known, according to his own showing, of this evidence . . . .”
- “This evidence was not newly-discovered. The defendant had known, according to his own showing, of this evidence . . . .”
- “A new trial will not be granted because of newly discovered evidence where the witness who was to give it was known to the accused, although he could not be found at the time of the trial, where no continuance or postponement was requested.”
- “A new trial will not be granted because of newly discovered evidence where the witness who was to give it was known to the accused, although he could not be found at the time of the trial, where no continuance or postponement was requested.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Johnston
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.