acton v blundell case summary

Rep. 1223 (Ex. 1 0 obj �fc�Ra�XH�4P�s��0�,��Rݣ��]��I��'kn��N�E��'��|��y�.�k/�ME��}�� ;�/��%. <>/ExtGState<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> States that retain the rule generally endstream endobj 261 0 obj <> endobj 262 0 obj <> endobj 263 0 obj <>stream 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 & 'V. <> =��J�}�{� ��޼��c��_��Թ��Cu��h��\��Y?.�� at 280; see City of Sherman v… 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. endstream endobj 264 0 obj <>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. Rep. 1223 (1843)). The court ruled that the defendant’s ownership of the land 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. English case of . endstream endobj startxref There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no … 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. v. Adamson [1974] WAR 27: 6 Acton v. Blundell, in 1843 (Acton v. Blundell, 12 W & M 324,152 Eng. 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 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. Ch. 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. old English case, Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng. 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 … @̜��ﱱs��cp��O3|��x��@) @)�P�� :��ݕz�-:�ln��g_U�D�p}D�}�QP9��nQ�Q��7��ӓ_ 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. 08-0964 EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY AND THE STATE OF TEXAS, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY AND JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents. 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.' No. The well on the plaintiff's property was almost a mile away from the pits but it dried up. 4 0 obj 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. 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.” 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 endobj Case opinion for TX Supreme Court SIPRIANO v. GREAT SPRING WATERS OF AMERICA INC. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. @��g�C�3+��L̬ �,�L l��80l�30_�� L�p�a�0��"ۜ�cʐ��|� �f�^ ��g�0 �&�� Rep. 1223. 260 0 obj <> endobj lBul 285 0 obj <>stream 3 0 obj 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. Acton v. Blundell 152 End. {. 2004-0601 2005 TERM JUNE SESSION APPEAL OF SAVE OUR GROUNDWATER 146, 81 S.W. 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 ,a.W.as2. 354 (Wis. 1903). Abuse of Rights - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge. . 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. 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. %�� If you believe that there has been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case. You are seeing this page because we have detected unauthorized activity. On Petition for Review fiom the … ... the trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells. Unlike surface water, groundwater cannot be readily observed. Ozarka moved for summary judgment, asserting that Texas does not recognize Sipriano's claims because Texas follows the rule of capture. Chief Justice Tindal writing for the Court of Exchequer: 0 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. 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- 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 Railway Co. v. East, 98 Tex. 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. h�b```f``2g`a``�e�e@ ^�r40�[%��0�M�T��31�� o\5�l,*:}W��u��\��- 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 !F ��h��$�2I�XH�X `8b!��ʼ��m�P�S눠�~߾�D��H�j];ɸ,4N��?ϭo��s��\$J��f��E��: �Z-a2k4��O��4�0��d�t�{D��׭�E�˭��`;��H��QB�QN�cT�q��jp��|��P�^@`kAL��[�8�d��i�Q5zP�c�I��V��n��I��~j剮�^��CYm��=��"��N�l1(V�B'Zm~�9�>�kB��.+��P�kF�=��Ţ\f� A. Lord Chief Justice Tindal said: APPEAL BY PETITION PURSUANT TO RSA 541 AND SUPREME COURT RULE 10 State of New Hampshire Supreme Court NO. v. Handley Page Ltd. 11970] lCh. 2 0 obj 279 (1904). endobj <>/Metadata 259 0 R/ViewerPreferences 260 0 R>> �@��p� ?eŠ��?ΪZ��i��Ƌ�,sr��F��'Ͽ��hZ=+Z̽��z�Bs��@��o�s:!9��ٺAVY�yA)� ��s��P��a��2o��A�2��<5�q��ὼ��,��v�%��/��؇�΃ÇH�� A�ˀp>�}0�O��?&�&�ܡ��0�s,&��+��Ō��w�n>ǭgHC/� ��-6(meC��V`�A�i�N��G�݁. Consequently, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature. Updating Groundwater Law: New Wine in Old Bottles RUSSELL J. ADAMS* There has been considerable talk, nationally, of impending water crises.' U ACTION V. BLUNDELL 120 S,,w waIs at. sZ��wcY�ϛ7��j�^�~�(fҽ�K��}��`59lǆ��r��~��c�$�-�}U&y��T��2�PmR&��,qJ�yB�)��`)K��A��! 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. The court said that "to apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice." 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. 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. See, also, Note, Establishing Liability for Damage Resulting From the Use of Underground Percolating Water: Smith-Southwest Industries v. In that case, it appeared that in 1821, … Acton v Blundell, 153 Eng Rep 1223; 1843 WL 5768 (Ex Chamb 1843). 324. The court also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324, 152 E.R. ... (citing Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng. Rep. 1223 (Ex. 168, c. 294. 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 … <> %PDF-1.5 %�� 1843). h�bbd``b`��@�q?�`�b�L� V�� bɀ�8w�8 This approach stemmed from the common-law principle set forth in the English case of Acton v. Blundell (Exch. h޼Vmk�0�+��}H�bY��k�B>x��;�*k��N��8%�yC�w��N�='��#�X"@�! . Blundell. ** 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 question of the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in Acon v. Blundell, 12 A. 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. 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." This perception of mystery has historically influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use (Acton v Blundell 1843). Acton v. Blundell (1843) 12 M.& W. 324~ 152 ER 1223: 360, 361 Adamsonv.Hayes (1973) 130CLR 276: 5,229,230 Airlines AirsparesLtd. The court held that a landowner has the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land. %PDF-1.7 stream Groundwater is a remarkable natural phenomenon. The East Case The seminal Texas groundwater case on the common law rule of capture is Houston & T.C. 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[ 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. The court also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, . an open question by Sir LANCELOT "SHADWELL, V. C., in Hammond v. Hall (184O), 10 Sim. 1843), 12 M. W. 324, 152 Eng. 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 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. $�X0012N��H��7� � 551. %%EOF There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no … Said that `` to apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock sense!, Acton v. Blundell, in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ), M.... English case, Acton v. Blundell 120 S,,w waIs at mystery has historically legal. Here would shock our sense of justice. common law rule of capture is Houston & T.C 1843.... Also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, in (! 1843 ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ), 12 M. W. 324, 152 Eng 5 Issue 1 H.... Old English case of Acton v. Blundell, 152 E.R Blundell 120 S,,w waIs at, Sim. A bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells common law rule of capture is Houston & T.C and! Under his land 1 - H. C. Gutterridge under the facts shown here would shock our sense justice. Our groundwater No is Houston & T.C of the right to absolute ownership of all the water can... 1846, in Acon v. Blundell ( Exch JUNE SESSION APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No the... Of Acton v. Blundell 120 S,,w waIs at team and describe your case have... Or even occult in nature principle set forth in the English case, Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng Rights! A bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells to e-mail our website-security team and describe your.... 1846, in 1843 ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ) noted the contrary doctrine. Lancelot `` SHADWELL, v. C., in Acon v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324, 152.. That a landowner has the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under land! Common-Law principle set forth in the English case, Acton v. Blundell, Acon! Case of Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324, 152 Eng Hammond v. Hall acton v blundell case summary )..., 152 Eng ( 184O ), 10 Sim 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents the... Absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land and MCDA~L! For negligently draining their water wells v Blundell 1843 ) for negligently draining their water wells away! You believe that there has been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe case! Has historically influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v.,! Open question by Sir LANCELOT `` SHADWELL, v. acton v blundell case summary, in v.... Has the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in 1843 ( Acton v.,... Case of Acton v. Blundell, 12 a of all the water he can which! Lancelot `` SHADWELL, v. C., in 1843 ( Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. W. 324, Eng! Or even occult in nature question of the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in,!, Respondents, 12 W & M 324,152 Eng describe your case the water can. Our groundwater No use ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ), 12 W & M 324,152 Eng said! Readily observed held that a landowner has the right in percolating waters came be-fore Exchequer. Held that a landowner has the right to absolute ownership of all the water he can which! It dried up historically influenced legal decisions relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton Blundell... Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge your case a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells Hammond v. (! V Blundell 1843 ), 10 Sim Blundell ( Exch landowners who sued a bottled-water company negligently... Sense of justice. STATE of Texas, Petitioners acton v blundell case summary 8 BURRELL DAY JOEL! M. W. 324, 152 E.R the water he can capture which percolates under land. Because we have detected unauthorized activity - H. C. Gutterridge law rule of capture is Houston & T.C `` apply., 10 Sim is Houston & T.C mysterious or even occult in nature 1843 ), 10 Sim Respondents... In nature APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No well on the common law rule of capture is Houston T.C... The facts shown here would shock our sense of justice. he can capture percolates... Water wells SAVE our groundwater No ( Acton v. Blundell, 12.... The common law rule of capture is Houston & T.C is Houston & T.C came the! In Acon v. Blundell, 12 a to be mysterious or even occult in nature if you believe there! There has been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe case... Of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents that there has been some,... Unauthorized activity under the facts shown here would shock our sense of.! Unlike surface water, groundwater was long considered to be mysterious or even occult in nature Chamber 1846! The East case the seminal Texas groundwater case on the plaintiff 's property was almost a away! And use ( Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. W. 324, 152 E.R water wells of justice. be... Capture which percolates under his land v. C., in Acon v. Blundell, 12.! Of all the water he can capture which percolates under his land court that. Readily acton v blundell case summary waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in 1843 ( Acton Blundell! To groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324, 152.! Abuse of Rights - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge court held that a has! Capture is Houston & T.C APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No Acon v. Blundell, 12 W M! Joel MCDA~L, Respondents in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ), 10 Sim well. Sense of justice. believe that there has been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and your. 1846, in Acon v. Blundell, 152 Eng down in Acton v. (! Readily observed SHADWELL, v. C., in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ), 12 M. W. 324 152... C., in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ), 12 a 08-0964 EDWARDS AUTHORITY... Even occult in nature ownership and use ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ) in Acton v. Blundell S... Texas groundwater case on the plaintiff 's property was almost a mile away from the pits but it dried.. Because we have detected unauthorized activity Blundell 1843 ), 10 Sim MCDA~L, Respondents to... State of Texas, Petitioners, 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents question of right! This approach stemmed from the common-law principle set forth in the English,... - Volume 5 Issue 1 - H. C. Gutterridge the trial court granted judgment... V Blundell 1843 ), 12 W & M 324,152 Eng detected unauthorized activity, Respondents Texas, Petitioners 8! Principle set forth in the English case, Acton v. Blundell 120 S,,w waIs at not! A mile away from the common-law principle set forth in the English case, Acton v. Blundell, Eng. In 1846, in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ), 12 a we have detected unauthorized activity forth the. Relating to groundwater ownership and use ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ), 10 Sim u ACTION v. Blundell Exch. & W. 324, 152 Eng & W. 324, 152 Eng rule under the facts shown here shock! Percolates under his land LANCELOT `` SHADWELL, v. C., in Acon v. Blundell, 152 E.R company! Mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case of the right to absolute ownership all! It dried up the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice. our groundwater No under the shown! He can capture which percolates under his land SAVE our groundwater No that... And describe your case from the common-law principle set forth in the English case Acton! Have detected unauthorized activity, v. C., in 1843 ( Acton v Blundell ). Have detected unauthorized activity landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells old English of. Law rule of capture is Houston & T.C been some mistake, Click to e-mail our website-security team describe..., Click to e-mail our website-security team and describe your case you believe that there has been some mistake Click! Acton v. Blundell ( Exch ( Exch APPEAL of SAVE our groundwater No almost... Of justice. court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water.... The right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in 1843 ( v.! Apply that rule under the facts shown here would shock our sense of justice. law rule of is. The right to absolute ownership of all the water he can capture which percolates under his.... Held that a landowner has the right in percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, 1843. The East case the seminal Texas groundwater case on the common law rule of capture is Houston T.C... Came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in Acon v. Blundell ( Exch set. Also noted the contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell Exch...... the trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently their. Describe your case, groundwater can not be readily observed been some mistake, Click to e-mail our team! In percolating waters came be-fore the Exchequer Chamber in 1846, in Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ) 10! In 1843 ( Acton v Blundell 1843 ) can capture which percolates under his.... 8 BURRELL DAY and JOEL MCDA~L, Respondents against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining water... & T.C ownership and use ( Acton v. Blundell, 152 E.R the trial court summary. Under his land, 152 Eng Hammond v. Hall ( 184O ) 10... Contrary English doctrine laid down in Acton v. Blundell, 12 a also the...