Dam

A construction of wood, stone, or other materials, made across a stream of water for the purpose of confining it; a mole.

See People v. Gaige, 23 Mich. 93; Colwell v. Water Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 245.

It is an instrument for turning the water of a stream to the use of a mill; Burnham v. Kempton, 44 N. H. 78. The word is sometimes used for the Rond formed by the obstruction; Colwell v. Water Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 245; Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. Hancock, 101 Cal. 42, 31 Pac. 112, 35 Pac. 334; Hutchinson v. Ry. Co., 37 Wis. 5S2; and it is held to be synonymous with dyke; Com. v. Tolman, 14!) Mass. 229, 21 N. E. 377, 3 L. R. A. 747, 14 Am. St. Rep. 414. The water collected by a dam is not properly termed a reservoir, as its object is not storage of water; Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. Hancock, 101 Cal. 42, 31 Pac. 112, 35 Pac. 334. The construction of dams in floatable streams to facilitate their use is in some states authorized by statute; Brooks v. River Imp. Co., 82 Me. 17, 19 Atl. 87, 7 L. R. A. 460, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459; Kretzschmar v. Meehan, 74 Minn. 211, 77 N. W. 41; Field v. Log Driving Co., 67 Wis. 569, 31 N. W. 17; Mc Laughlin v. Mfg. Co.. L03 N. C. 100, 9 S. E. 307; and incidental injuries to land of riparian proprietors thereby damaged are held to be consequential injuries incident to their proprietorship; Brooks v. River Imp. Co., S2 Me. IT, 19 Atl. 87, 7 L. K. A. 460, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459. See Logs; Riparian Rights. thereby materially impair the rights of the proprietors above or below I ■ of the water in its:> ed (low; Gould, Waters 110, n.; Tyler v. Wilkinson, 1 Maa 401, Fed. Cas. No. 14,312; Vandenburgb v. V: gen, L3 Johns. (N. ST.) 212; B< mlngs, 20 Johns. iX. Y.i '.">. 11 An.. Dec 249; Boynton v. Rees,:> Pick. (Mass.) 528: Wi worth v. Tillotson, IB Conn.:;<:•;. •';'.> Am. i •■ 391; Betrich v. Deachler, 6 Pa. 32; Shrunk v. Xav. Co., 14 S. & It. (Pa.) 71; Scott v. Willson, 3 X. II. 321; Daniels v. Saw In 127 Mass. 534; Voter v. Bobbs, 69 Ma 19; Banna v. Clarke, 31 Graft i Va.) 36; D Woolen Mill Co. v. Greer, 49 la.

490; Am. L. Reg. 147, n.

He may even detain the water for the purposes of a mill, for a reasonable time, to the injury of an older mill. — the reasonableness of the detention in each particular case being a question for the jury; Ilartzall v. Sill, 12 Pa. 248; Thomas v. Brackney, 17 Barb. (X. Y.i 654; Snow v. Parsons, 28 Vt. 459, 67 Am. Dec. 723; Parker v. Ilotchkiss, 25 Conn. 321; Phillips v. Sherman, 04 Me. 171; Drake v. Woolen Co., 99 Mass. 574; Hoxsie v. Iloxsie. 38 Mich. 77; Ilolden v. Lake Co., 53 N. II. 552. But he must not unreasonably detain the water; Dllllng v. Murray, 6 Ind. 324, 63 Am. Dec. 385; and the jury may find the constant use of the water by night and a detention of it by day to be an unreasonable use, though there be no design to injure others; Barrett v. Parsons, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 367; see Bullard v. Mfg. Co.. 77 X. Y. 525. Xor has such owner the right to raise bis dam so high as to cause the stream to flow back upon the land of supra-riparian proprietors; 1 B. «fc Aid. 258; Cowles v. Kidder, 24 N. H. 364, 57 Am. Dec. 2S7; L'nion Canal Co. v. Keiser, 19 Pa. 134; Pitman v. Poor, 38 Me. 237; Ellington v. Bennett, 59 Ga. 286; Drew v. Inhabitants of Westfield, 124 Mass. 461. And see BACK- Wateb. These rights may, of course, be modified by contract or prescription. An owner maintaining a dam acr< floatable stream is entitled to an Injunction against the operation of a splash dam by an upper riparian owner in such manner as to Interfere materially with the continuity of his power and to fill his pond and race with dirt; Trullinger v. Bowe, 53 Or. 219, '.'7 Pac. 54S, 99 Pac. 880, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 545. A mill proprietor may erect and maintain dams in a floatable stream, but he must keep open, for the use of those that wish, a convenient and considerable.passageway for Logs through or by bis dam; Lancey v. Clifford, 54 Me. 187, 92 Am. Dec. 561; Connecticut River Lumber Co. v. Olcott Falls Co., 65