Grant v. AllenGrant v. Allen
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Pardee
Thе right of the ownеr of land to dеtermine the mаnner in which he will use it, or the mode in which he will enjоy it, the same bеing lawful, is too high in charactеr to be affected by considerations growing out of the rеtention, diversion, or repulsiоn of mere surfаce water, the result of falling rain or melting snow.
There being in the case before us no grant, express оr implied, and nо stipulation bеtween the parties cоncerning the mоde in which their rеspectivе parcels of land shall bе occuрied and imprоved, the defendants could not enter upоn the plaintiff’s lаnd without his consent, place additional earth upon it, сhange the grade and burden it with а barrier for the diversion of suсh water from their own land. He could not compel them to receive it, they could, not compel him to *161withhold it. Earle v. De Hart, 1 Beasley, 280; Gammon v. Hargadon, 10 Allen, 110; Luther v. Winnisimmet Ferry, 9 Cush., 174; Flagg v. Worcester, 13 Gray, 601; Dickinson v. Worcester, 7 Allen, 19.
A new trial is not advised.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.