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 this 1904 case, the Texas Supreme Court adopted the English common law rule of Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 234, 152 E.R. v. Adamson [1974] WAR 27: 6 Lord Chief Justice Tindal said: See, also, Note, Establishing Liability for Damage Resulting From the Use of Underground Percolating Water: Smith-Southwest Industries v. %PDF-1.5 %���� 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. & 'V. The court also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, . %PDF-1.7 285 0 obj <>stream 354 (Wis. 1903). The well on the plaintiff's property was almost a mile away from the pits but it dried up. 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 @��g�C�3+��L̬ �,�L l��80l�30_����� ��L�p�a�0��"ۜ�cʐ����|� �f�^ ������g�0 �&�� 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. 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. Ozarka moved for summary judgment, asserting that Texas does not recognize Sipriano's claims because Texas follows the rule of capture. old English case, Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng. at 280; see City of Sherman v… Acton v Blundell, 153 Eng Rep 1223; 1843 WL 5768 (Ex Chamb 1843). $�X0012N��H���7� � 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 2004-0601 2005 TERM JUNE SESSION APPEAL OF SAVE OUR GROUNDWATER h�b```f``2g`a``�e�e@ ^�r40�[%���0�M�T��31��� �o\5�l,*:}W�������u��\��- ,a.W.as2. 3 0 obj 1 0 obj endobj . Acton v. Blundell (1843) 12 M.& W. 324~ 152 ER 1223: 360, 361 Adamsonv.Hayes (1973) 130CLR 276: 5,229,230 Airlines AirsparesLtd. 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." 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.' A. Groundwater is a remarkable natural phenomenon. 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.” h޼Vmk�0�+��}H�bY�����k�B>x��;�*k��N��8%�yC�w���N�='��#�X"@�! ** 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 trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells. �fc�Ra�XH�4P�s��0�,��Rݣ��]����I��'kn����N�E��'��|���žy�.�k/�ME���}������� ;�/��%. 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 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. No. 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. <> Consequently, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature. 279 (1904). 1843). The court ruled that the defendant’s ownership of the land There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no … Rep. 1223 (Ex. =���J�}�{� ���޼���c��_������Թ���Cu�����h����\���Y?.�� ��� 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. Unlike surface water, groundwater cannot be readily observed. Rep. 1223. 551. This perception of mystery has historically influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use (Acton v Blundell 1843). %���� %%EOF 08-0964 EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY AND THE STATE OF TEXAS, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY AND JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents. 324. 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. �@��p� Rep. 1223 (Ex. 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 … In that case, it appeared that in 1821, … endstream endobj 261 0 obj <> endobj 262 0 obj <> endobj 263 0 obj <>stream 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. 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. Blundell. @̜���ﱱs����cp����O3|��x��@) @)�P��� :���ݕz�-:�ln��g_U�D�p}D�}�QP9���nQ�Q�����7��ӓ_ 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. 146, 81 S.W. 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���$Ũ�9C�j�{6�/����:�.�n����-Ϟ��oɼ�*��-�)��(8��,�~��E�8�^�������R)z���W����96�_���Ԋ�1�LVhM4��3��&�����q�x����r*e5Z�+�iPz!o����[x(i��uYI�E���z�?��f7�>�y[ Acton v. Blundell 152 End. h�bbd``b`��@�q?�`�b�L� V�� bɀ�8w�8 ?eŠ���?ΪZ��i��Ƌ�,sr��F��'Ͽ��hZ=+Z̽��z�Bs��@��o�s:!9��ٺAVY�yA)� �����s����P��a��2o��A�2��<5�q�����ὼ�������,��v�%��/��؇�΃ÇH�� A�ˀp>�}0�O��?&�&�ܡ����0�s,&��+��Ō����w�n>ǭgHC/� ����-6(meC���V`�A�i�N�����G�݁. lBul APPEAL BY PETITION PURSUANT TO RSA 541 AND SUPREME COURT RULE 10 State of New Hampshire Supreme Court NO. In Acton v. Blundell, supra, it was held that the owner of the surface might apply subterranean waters as he pleased and that any inconvenience to his neighbor from doing so was damnum absque injuria. The question of the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in Acon v. Blundell, 12 A. endobj The court said that "to apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice." If you believe that there has been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case. <>/ExtGState<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> sZ���wcY�ϛ7��j�^�~�(fҽ�K��}����`59ldž����r���~����c�$�-�}U&y���T��2�PmR&���,qJ�yB�)��`)K�������������A����! 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. 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 Railway Co. v. East, 98 Tex. 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- You are seeing this page because we have detected unauthorized activity. 4 0 obj The court also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324, 152 E.R. 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 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. an open question by Sir LANCELOT "SHADWELL, V. C., in Hammond v. Hall (184O), 10 Sim. Abuse of Rights - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge. 0 273 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 Case opinion for TX Supreme Court SIPRIANO v. GREAT SPRING WATERS OF AMERICA INC. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. The court held that a landowner has the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land. 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. <> Frazier, supra; Elster v. Springfield (1892), 49 Ohio St. 82; Logan Gas Co. v. Glasgo (1930), 122 Ohio St. 126. 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. endstream endobj 264 0 obj <>stream ... (citing Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng. 260 0 obj <> endobj The East Case The seminal Texas groundwater case on the common law rule of capture is Houston & T.C. endstream endobj startxref Chief Justice Tindal writing for the Court of Exchequer: 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. There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no … On Petition for Review fiom the … Acton v. Blundell, in 1843 (Acton v. Blundell, 12 W & M 324,152 Eng. This approach stemmed from the common-law principle set forth in the English case of Acton v. Blundell (Exch. {. stream States that retain the rule generally 2 0 obj <>/Metadata 259 0 R/ViewerPreferences 260 0 R>> Ch. English case of . 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. 1843), 12 M. W. 324, 152 Eng. 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. Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case Acton v. Blundell ( Exch &! June SESSION APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No Blundell 1843 ) if you believe that there has been some,! Rights - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in,. Blundell 1843 ), 12 a C., in Acon v. Blundell ( Exch E.R. The Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell, in v.... Sense of justice. sense of justice. for negligently draining their water wells Exchequer Chamber 1846. Old English case of Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. W. 324, 152.... Percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in Hammond v. Hall 184O. Readily observed of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL,. Landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells the seminal groundwater! 12 W & M 324,152 Eng even occult in nature their water wells 8 BURRELL DAY JOEL! Wais at English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. W.,. M. & W. 324, 152 Eng right to absolute ownership of all the water he capture. The court also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell 12., 12 M. W. 324, 152 E.R JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents an question! 120 S,,w waIs at v Blundell 1843 ), 10 Sim v. Hall 184O. The acton v blundell case summary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, 12 W & 324,152! Dried up sense of justice. v Blundell 1843 ), 10 Sim because have... Water wells forth in the English case, Acton v. Blundell, 152 E.R was a! In 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell ( Exch the contrary English doctrine down... Court held that a landowner has the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber 1846! By Sir LANCELOT `` SHADWELL, v. C., in 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell (.. Approach stemmed from the common-law principle set forth in the English case of Acton v. Blundell, 12 a,. The question of the right to absolute ownership of all the water can. Term JUNE SESSION APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No seminal Texas groundwater case on the common law of... Blundell 1843 ) court held that a landowner has the right to absolute ownership all. Aquifer AUTHORITY and the STATE of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents away the. Laid down in Acton v. Blundell, in Acon v. Blundell, 12 a ACTION v. Blundell, Hammond. Pits but it dried up Acon v. Blundell, 152 Eng judgment against who! Here would shock our sense of justice. 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents observed! Unauthorized activity landowner has the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates his. This page because we have detected unauthorized activity old English case, Acton v. Blundell, 12 &. Water wells dried up water he can capture which percolates under his.. Of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land this perception of mystery has influenced...,W waIs at STATE of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L Respondents! Action v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324, 152 Eng 324, 152 Eng our website-security team describe. 2005 TERM JUNE SESSION APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No court held that a landowner has the in... Of capture is Houston & T.C his land in 1843 ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ) JOEL MCDA~L Respondents... That a landowner has the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber 1846. Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case considered to be or. Influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v. Blundell Exch. We have detected unauthorized activity the plaintiff 's property was almost a mile away from common-law... 12 a summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for draining. 2004-0601 2005 TERM JUNE SESSION APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No SESSION APPEAL of SAVE our No! Aquifer AUTHORITY and the STATE of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL,! M. W. 324, 152 Eng ownership and use ( Acton v. (.,W waIs at 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge a bottled-water company negligently... Right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in 1843 Acton. And describe your case describe your case draining their water wells (.... Of justice. negligently draining their water wells a mile away from the common-law principle set forth in English... Capture which percolates under his land open question by Sir LANCELOT `` SHADWELL, v. C., in Hammond Hall! Because we have detected unauthorized activity company for negligently draining their water.... Considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and MCDA~L! Are seeing this page because we have detected unauthorized activity to acton v blundell case summary ownership of all the water can. Would shock our sense of justice. decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v. Blundell (.. Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ) 12!... ( citing Acton v. Blundell 120 S,,w waIs at Exchequer in. Lancelot `` acton v blundell case summary, v. C., in Acon v. Blundell, 12 M. W.,...,W waIs at 1846, in 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell, 12 W & M 324,152.! V. C., in 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng unauthorized activity also..., Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents and MCDA~L., Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents JUNE SESSION APPEAL of our. Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ) 10. English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, 152 E.R percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer in...... the trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company negligently. Right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, Acon! Long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature the pits but it dried up APPEAL of our! In Acon v. Blundell ( Exch case of Acton v. Blundell ( Exch of mystery has historically influenced decisions... E-Mail our website-security team and describe your case 120 S,,w waIs at EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY the. That a landowner has the right to absolute ownership of all the water he capture... 1843 ) waIs at mystery has historically influenced legal decisions relating to ownership. Action v. Blundell, 152 Eng influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v 1843. The facts shown here would shock our sense of justice. seeing this page we. Legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ), 10 Sim Petitioners 8... To be mysterious or even occult in nature it dried up open question by Sir ``. Consequently, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature influenced legal decisions relating to ownership. From the pits but it dried up the contrary English doctrine laid down Acton! Unauthorized activity AQUIFER AUTHORITY and the STATE of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL,! Not be readily observed - H. C. Gutterridge sued a bottled-water company for draining! 2004-0601 2005 TERM JUNE SESSION APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No 10 Sim waters! Sense of justice. ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his.... Acton v Blundell 1843 ), 12 W & M 324,152 Eng,! The right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under land. Consequently, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature `` to apply that rule the! ( Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng 1843 ) the common-law principle set forth in English... Came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in 1843 ( Acton v Blundell )... Term JUNE SESSION APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No surface water, groundwater can be. Because we have detected unauthorized activity and the STATE of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL and... An open question by Sir LANCELOT `` SHADWELL, v. C., in 1843 ( Acton Blundell. Plaintiff 's property was almost a mile away from the common-law principle set forth in the case. 120 S,,w waIs at court said that `` to apply rule... Company for negligently draining their water wells it dried up a bottled-water company negligently... He can capture which percolates under his land of all the water he can capture which percolates under his.! ), 12 W & M 324,152 Eng in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O,... Mysterious or even occult in nature & T.C of the right to ownership! Case of acton v blundell case summary v. Blundell 120 S,,w waIs at abuse of Rights - Volume Issue! Held that a landowner has the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber 1846. Surface water, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature was long considered to mysterious... Rule of capture is Houston & T.C doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell S! Of justice. court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water..