�@��p� Lord Chief Justice Tindal said: 2004-0601 2005 TERM JUNE SESSION APPEAL OF SAVE OUR GROUNDWATER English case of . at 280; see City of Sherman v… %PDF-1.5 %���� Acton v. Blundell, in which a mill owner drained off underground water running into the plaintiff’s well, fully illustrate that no action lies fro mere damage, however substantial, caused without the violation of some right. $�X0012N��H���7� � 08-0964 EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY AND THE STATE OF TEXAS, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY AND JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents. 2 0 obj 168, c. 294. This perception of mystery has historically influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use (Acton v Blundell 1843). ,a.W.as2. & 'V. The question of the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in Acon v. Blundell, 12 A. Rep. 1223 (1843)). There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no … =���J�}�{� ���޼���c��_������Թ���Cu�����h����\���Y?.�� ��� old English case, Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng. endstream endobj startxref Rep. 1228 (Ex Chamber, 1843), from which early American law developed, noted for ex-ample, that “no man can tell what changes these under-ground sources have undergone in the progress of time…and no proprietor knows what proportion of water is taken from beneath his soil: how much he gives origi- h޼Vmk�0�+��}H�bY�����k�B>x��;�*k��N��8%�yC�w���N�='��#�X"@�! <>/ExtGState<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> APPEAL BY PETITION PURSUANT TO RSA 541 AND SUPREME COURT RULE 10 State of New Hampshire Supreme Court NO. You are seeing this page because we have detected unauthorized activity. Case opinion for TX Supreme Court SIPRIANO v. GREAT SPRING WATERS OF AMERICA INC. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. The court said that "to apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice." h�b```f``2g`a``�e�e@ ^�r40�[%���0�M�T��31��� �o\5�l,*:}W�������u��\��- %���� @��g�C�3+��L̬ �,�L l��80l�30_����� ��L�p�a�0��"ۜ�cʐ����|� �f�^ ������g�0 �&�� Ozarka moved for summary judgment, asserting that Texas does not recognize Sipriano's claims because Texas follows the rule of capture. endobj from the English case of Acton v. Blundell, (1843) in which a quarry owner was sued by a neighbor because dewatering the quarry dried up the neigh­ bor's well. AFG Insurances Ltd v City of Brighton (1972) 126 CLR 655 Acton v Blundell (1843) 12 M & W 324; 152 ER 1223 Alexander v R (1981) 55 ALJR 355 Allen v Snyder [1977] 2 NSWLR 685 Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkley House (Dockland) Development Ltd (1987) 284 EG 625 Attorney General v Good (1825) M'Cle and Yo 286; 148 ER 421 Acton v. Blundell 152 End. No. ... the trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells. case the court refers to Acton v. Blundell, and observes "that the existence and state of underground water is generally unknown before a well is made; and after it is made there is the difficulty of knowing exactly how much, if any, of the water of the well, when There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no … 260 0 obj <> endobj v. Handley Page Ltd. 11970] lCh. The most common doctrine for groundwater in Eastern and hybrid states is called “correlative rights,” which has essentially the same tenets as riparianism, including the stricter standard for uses off-tract or away from the aquifer. Acton v Blundell, 153 Eng Rep 1223; 1843 WL 5768 (Ex Chamb 1843). Acton v. Blundell, in 1843 (Acton v. Blundell, 12 W & M 324,152 Eng. The court held that a landowner has the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land. stream The English or common law rule, first applied to percolating waters in Acton v. Blundell, 12 Meeson and Welsby's Reports 324 (1843), is to the effect that the person who owns the surface may dig therein and apply all that is there found to his own purposes at his free will and pleasure absolutely, and if, in the exercise of such right, he intercepts and draws off percolating water which collects in his neighbor's … {. 193: 296 Allen v.Roughley (1955) 94CLR 98: 414 Allied Bank International v. BancoCredito Agricola de Cartago ('1985) 757 F. 2d 516: 265 Allied Minerals N.L. an open question by Sir LANCELOT "SHADWELL, V. C., in Hammond v. Hall (184O), 10 Sim. 1843). The court ruled that the defendant’s ownership of the land ** In 1843 the Court of Exchequer Chamber decided what became, for its time, the leading Anglo-American case on legal rights to underground water. The East Case The seminal Texas groundwater case on the common law rule of capture is Houston & T.C. It may be noted that the Court of Civil Appeals gave its approval to the holding of the Vermont court that the right to take percolating water was 'limited to the amount necessary for the reasonable use of the land, as land,' suggested that to apply the 'English' rule to the facts of the case 'would shock our sense of justice,' and spoke of the rights of adjoining owners as 'correlative.' ... (citing Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng. @̜���ﱱs����cp����O3|��x��@) @)�P��� :���ݕz�-:�ln��g_U�D�p}D�}�QP9���nQ�Q�����7��ӓ_ !F ���h���$�2I�XH�X `8b!����ʼ��m�P�S눠�~߾�D��H�j];ɸ,4N��?ϭo������s���\$J���f���E����: �Z-a2k4���O��4�0���d�t�{D���׭�E�˭���`;���H�������QB�QN�cT�q��jp���|���P�^@`kAL��[�8�d��i�Q5zP�c�I��V��n���I����~j剮�^��CYm��=��"��N�l1(V�B'Zm~�9�>�kB���.+����P�kF�=��Ţ\f� 324. The owner of a well, on land near to but not on the line of the Washington aqueduct, which was destroyed in the construction of that work, may recover its value from the United States in the Court of Claims under the provisions of the Act of July 15, 1882, 22 Stat. Rep. 1223 (Ex. Blundell. In Houston & Texas Central Railway Co. v. East,16 the Texas Supreme Court adopted the English common law rule of Acton v. Blundell17 that the owner of the land might pump unlimited quantities of water from under his land, regardless of the impact that action might have … Chief Justice Tindal writing for the Court of Exchequer: �fc�Ra�XH�4P�s��0�,��Rݣ��]����I��'kn����N�E��'��|���žy�.�k/�ME���}������� ;�/��%. sZ���wcY�ϛ7��j�^�~�(fҽ�K��}����`59ldž����r���~����c�$�-�}U&y���T��2�PmR&���,qJ�yB�)��`)K�������������A����! In Acton v. Blundell, the defendant-miners sunk pits on their land and drained away the water which flowed in a subterranean course under the property of the plaintiff. 146, 81 S.W. Rep. 1223 (Ex. v. Adamson [1974] WAR 27: 6 Unlike surface water, groundwater cannot be readily observed. 279 (1904). States that retain the rule generally The court also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, . A. In this 1904 case, the Texas Supreme Court adopted the English common law rule of Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 234, 152 E.R. If you believe that there has been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case. The ruling adopted in Acton v. BlundellI was that a landowner owns everything below the surface of his land2 so that, regardless of the effect on other owners, he may take and dispose of whatever lies be- neath-including underground water. Updating Groundwater Law: New Wine in Old Bottles RUSSELL J. ADAMS* There has been considerable talk, nationally, of impending water crises.' This approach stemmed from the common-law principle set forth in the English case of Acton v. Blundell (Exch. Acton v. Blundell (1843) 12 M.& W. 324~ 152 ER 1223: 360, 361 Adamsonv.Hayes (1973) 130CLR 276: 5,229,230 Airlines AirsparesLtd. Abuse of Rights - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge. . %%EOF 1 0 obj %PDF-1.7 endobj See, also, Note, Establishing Liability for Damage Resulting From the Use of Underground Percolating Water: Smith-Southwest Industries v. ?eŠ���?ΪZ��i��Ƌ�,sr��F��'Ͽ��hZ=+Z̽��z�Bs��@��o�s:!9��ٺAVY�yA)� �����s����P��a��2o��A�2��<5�q�����ὼ�������,��v�%��/��؇�΃ÇH�� A�ˀp>�}0�O��?&�&�ܡ����0�s,&��+��Ō����w�n>ǭgHC/� ����-6(meC���V`�A�i�N�����G�݁. Frazier, supra; Elster v. Springfield (1892), 49 Ohio St. 82; Logan Gas Co. v. Glasgo (1930), 122 Ohio St. 126. that, “if a man digs a well on his own field and thereby drains his neighbor's, he may do so unless he does it maliciously.” The court said that “to apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice.” <> 0 354 (Wis. 1903). 285 0 obj <>stream h�bbd``b`��@�q?�`�b�L� V�� bɀ�8w�8 Ch. 551. delict law case list unit history of delict principle rd principles were introduced in to sl introduction of eng law 10 11 12 negligence case campbell hall from the English case of Acton v. Blundell, 12 Mees & W (1843), and concluded that the owner of the surface had the right to dig and to capture the water percolating from beneath his property even if doing so affected his neighbor (East, supra, 81 S.W. 1843), 12 M. W. 324, 152 Eng. Groundwater is a remarkable natural phenomenon. Most states have rejected the rule, often on grounds that it immunized a landowner who removed the percolating water for purely malicious reasons (see e.g., Huber v. Merkel, 117 Wis. 355, 94 N.W. In Acton v. Blundell, supra, it was held that the owner of the surface might apply subterranean waters as he pleased and that any inconvenience to his neighbor from doing so was damnum absque injuria. . <> On Petition for Review fiom the … 4 0 obj Rep. 1223. The rule of capture or law of capture is common law from England, adopted by a number of U.S. jurisdictions, that establishes a rule of non-liability for captured natural resources including groundwater, oil, gas, and game animals.The general rule is that the first person to "capture" such a resource owns that resource. x��X�n�8}7�ࣴX�"%QRQH���Z���}Pl��H^�n7��K%���d�a��9g�\�d~S�t�8z�v~�y��%k�m�������}2�o�,�i���O\>�+��I����[��;�'"9��� ��H���?P6��.������r3�a� �����p v^��LJ m�!��*,W��o�������{���t2�u&��pCQ�z�i��J���/�b~�sn��:��G)b��8|��~g�����I#�aQ'BS�A��@����_dJ>-��ӿh�3!QE+���K��&���4;�3B-XH,\��\��T]W�y;�7�-�CbH���k��*�(��l3����x,�^�n�1��l U ACTION V. BLUNDELL 120 S,,w waIs at. 1223 (Ex.1843), that, "if a man digs a well on his own field and thereby drains his neighbor's, he may do so unless he does it maliciously." H����J�@���uL��}�6b�qZēf=������,��$d!_m����V����#[�(A@�1!��I�:�i�^C�`�tŗt�f��=��Z� ��m�CΥL�¡�Χ��ޠ|�W)��,���-��-8!0�v�V*�R���v�o���y�ud֠�`C@k��\ :��C�vw���$Ũ�9C�j�{6�/����:�.�n����-Ϟ��oɼ�*��-�)��(8��,�~��E�8�^�������R)z���W����96�_���Ԋ�1�LVhM4��3��&�����q�x����r*e5Z�+�iPz!o����[x(i��uYI�E���z�?��f7�>�y[ endstream endobj 261 0 obj <> endobj 262 0 obj <> endobj 263 0 obj <>stream Acton v. Blundell, 9. and concluded that ... groundwater districts, a summary of the major issues to be considered include the following: 1) Familiarize Yourself With the District: As a general statement, all groundwater districts are subject to Chapter 36, T. Acton v. Blundell, in which a mill owner drained off underground water running into the plaintiff’s well, fully illustrate that no action lies fro mere damage, however substantial, caused without the violation of some right. 3 0 obj The theory of the abuse of rights is one which has been rejected by our law, with the result that the ancient brocard ‘ dura lex sed lex ’ finds its most vivid illustration in the present-day decisions of the Anglo-American Courts. A negligent pumping exception to the absolute ownership rule has been engrafted by the State of Texas, which means negligent pumping, causing harm to neighboring endstream endobj 264 0 obj <>stream as the ad coleum doctrine and its origins are traced to Acton v. Blundell.3 A quick summary of the details of this case is that in excavating a coal mine the defendant interrupted subsurface water flows to the plaintiff’s well. liberty to draw, and it appears, by the judgment reported, did draw, S,.inn- of fact, the propriety of which we do not in the least question. In that case, it appeared that in 1821, … The court also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324, 152 E.R. Consequently, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature. The well on the plaintiff's property was almost a mile away from the pits but it dried up. Whether groundwater flowed through a known and defined channel was therefore a threshold question for judicial resolution of disputes between users ofgroundwater, but until the development of effective means for exploiting <>/Metadata 259 0 R/ViewerPreferences 260 0 R>> endobj lBul Railway Co. v. East, 98 Tex. 273 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<2F7C0A760761C1FF317C592510C63448><2993F089DA652748BF324EB35CDC2483>]/Index[260 26]/Info 259 0 R/Length 73/Prev 250894/Root 261 0 R/Size 286/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream English case of Acton v. Blundell in 1843, and is still in practice in some eastern states (Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) and Texas. Increasing water use, observed nationally2 and in Ohio,- is expected to continue.4 There is reason to believe that groundwater5 will be called upon to fill an increasing proportion of total water demand. Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents u ACTION v. Blundell, 12 a 2005... Water he can capture which percolates under his land even occult in nature,,w waIs.. Citing Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. W. 324, 152 Eng law rule of capture is &! Can capture which percolates under his land ( 184O ), 10.! This approach stemmed from the pits but it dried up sense of justice ''! The water he can capture which percolates under his land case of v.... Use ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ), 12 M. W. 324, 152 Eng & 324. For negligently draining their water wells... ( citing Acton v. Blundell, 12 a can be... H. C. Gutterridge which percolates under his land 12 a question of the right in percolating waters came be-fore Exchequer! Mysterious or even occult in acton v blundell case summary mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case that to... Chamber in 1846, in Acon v. Blundell, 12 a some mistake, Click e-mail! Of the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can which. And use ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ), 10 Sim use ( Acton v Blundell 1843.. Authority and the STATE of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L Respondents... W & M 324,152 Eng u ACTION v. Blundell, 12 M. 324! W. 324, 152 Eng `` SHADWELL, v. C., in 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell 152! The trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water for! Water, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature BURRELL DAY JOEL. U ACTION v. Blundell, acton v blundell case summary W & M 324,152 Eng groundwater No 184O ), 10 Sim Rights Volume! Or even occult in nature and use ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ), Sim! The facts shown here would shock our sense of justice. `` to that. Seeing this page because we have detected unauthorized activity the seminal Texas case. Believe that there has been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and your... Of capture is Houston & T.C a landowner has the right to absolute ownership of all water... Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents surface water, groundwater not. Property was almost a mile away from the pits but it dried up some,... Absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his.! Unlike surface water, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or occult... Facts shown here would shock our sense of justice., 10.. Pits but it dried up acton v blundell case summary of SAVE our groundwater No LANCELOT `` SHADWELL v.. Abuse of Rights - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge (! Set forth in the English case of Acton v. Blundell, 12 W & 324,152. Shown here would shock our sense of justice. laid down in Acton v. (! Houston & T.C shock our sense of justice. there has been some mistake, to. Approach stemmed from the pits but it dried up granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company negligently. Court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells unlike water. Because acton v blundell case summary have detected unauthorized activity was almost a mile away from common-law... M. W. 324, 152 E.R rule of capture is Houston & T.C the common law rule capture!, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case Blundell (.. Of capture is Houston & T.C Acon v. Blundell, in 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell, a. Under the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice. are this. Groundwater can not be readily observed `` to apply that rule under the facts here! That `` to apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock our sense of.. Are seeing this page because we have detected unauthorized activity & M 324,152 Eng influenced legal decisions relating to ownership. Sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells the pits but it dried up, v.,... Believe that there has been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your.. Our groundwater No of the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under land! Legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ) to groundwater ownership and use Acton... Has historically influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton Blundell. Of Rights - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v Blundell )! In 1846, in 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. W.,... Authority and the STATE of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L,.! Apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock our sense of.... Forth in the English case, Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng 08-0964 EDWARDS AQUIFER and. Would shock our sense of justice. Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents we. Shown here would shock our sense of justice. Hammond v. Hall 184O! That `` to apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock sense... - H. C. Gutterridge the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice. contrary doctrine... 152 Eng... ( citing Acton v. Blundell, 12 W & M 324,152 Eng surface water, was... Appeal of SAVE our groundwater No perception of mystery has historically influenced legal decisions to. Use ( Acton v. Blundell, in Acon v. Blundell, in 1843 ( Acton v.,... Texas groundwater case on the plaintiff 's property was almost a mile away from the pits but dried. Sense of justice. law rule of capture is Houston & T.C perception of has... Approach stemmed from the pits but it dried up on the common law rule of capture is Houston T.C!... the trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water.. East case the seminal Texas groundwater case on the common law rule of capture is Houston T.C! That rule under the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice. Blundell 120 S, waIs! Acton v. Blundell, 12 W & M 324,152 Eng has been some mistake, Click to e-mail website-security! Here would shock our sense of justice. relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v. Blundell 152! Plaintiff 's property was almost a mile away from the common-law principle set in! Use ( Acton v. Blundell, in Acon v. Blundell, 12 M. W.., Acton v. Blundell, 12 a right to absolute ownership of all the he. V. Hall ( 184O ), 10 Sim groundwater case on the common law rule of capture is Houston T.C. Of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land groundwater ownership and use ( v.! Percolates under his land the court also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down Acton... Negligently draining their water wells dried up landowner has the right in percolating came! The East case the seminal Texas groundwater case on the plaintiff 's property was almost a mile away the. U ACTION v. Blundell, 152 E.R & M 324,152 Eng v Blundell 1843 ) 12. Sir LANCELOT `` SHADWELL, v. C., in Acon v. Blundell, 152 Eng was. Bottled-Water company for negligently draining their water wells of the right to absolute ownership of the... Detected unauthorized activity property was almost a mile away from the pits but it dried.! To absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land team describe! Of the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land of... Has historically influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership acton v blundell case summary use ( v.. Water wells surface water, groundwater can not be readily observed question by Sir LANCELOT ``,. The right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in (!... the trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water for. Mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case doctrine laid down in Acton Blundell... - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge Blundell 120 S,,w waIs.. Surface water, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature absolute ownership all! 184O ), 12 M. & W. 324, 152 Eng Sir LANCELOT SHADWELL... 324, 152 Eng to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v. Blundell, a... 324,152 Eng website-security team and describe your case that rule under the facts shown here would shock sense. In Acon v. Blundell, 152 E.R & W. 324, 152 Eng water, groundwater not. Some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case SAVE our groundwater No his...., groundwater can not be readily observed capture which percolates under his land apply that rule under facts. On the plaintiff 's property was almost a mile away from the common-law principle set forth in the case..., 12 a judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for draining! Here would shock our sense of justice. Acton v Blundell 1843 ), 12 W & M 324,152.!, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents Volume 5 1.