Bill in Equity, praying that the right of the plaintiff to take water from a cistern in the defendant’s house be defined, and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the exercise of that right. Facts found by a referee. Anson Cole formerly owned the premises of both the plaintiff and the defendant, which lie adjacent.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1925
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
The plaintiff’s title being derived from Cole, if he has the right to take water from the defendant’s cistern (a point on which no opinion is expressed), it can, at most, be no greater than that reserved to Cole in his prior conveyance to Sabin, which in legal contemplation was only so much of the water as might not be used by the occupants of the place conveyed in the reasonable enjoyment of the premises. Hence the finding of fact by the referee, that the defendant’s use of the water has been a reasonable one, makes it obvious that the plaintiff’s alleged cause of Complaint is unfounded. Furthermore, it is not found, nor does it appear, that the quantity of water used or appropriated by the defendant has been increased since the plaintiff’s ownership of the store lot, and therefore the changes in the manner of its use are immaterial.
