Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

stream to accumulate water to run the mill; but the maintaining of
such a dam cannot give him any prescriptive right to prevent the use of
the stream as a public highway. Gaston v. Mace, 848.

--

10. FLOATABLE STREAMS, RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE LAND-OWNER AND
OF THE PUBLIC IN. While the owner of land through which a float-
able stream runs owns the bed as well as the banks thereof, he has
no property in the water itself, aside from that which is necessary
for the gratification of his natural and ordinary wants, and of hay.
ing it flow without disturbance or material diminution by any other
proprietor. His use of the stream and its waters must be reasonable,
and not inconsistent with the reasonable enjoyment of others who have
an equal right to its use. The public has the right to use it as a public
highway to float lumber and other products to mill and market, and
the land-owner has no right to unreasonably incommode and hinder the
public use. Gaston v. Mace, 848.

11. UNDERGROUND WATERS, RIGHT TO POLLUTE. -The owner of land has
no right to pollute underground waters running therein which, when
they leave such land, flow into a spring on the land of an adjacent pro-
prietor. Hence if the owner of land, or his tenant, erects a warehouse,
and places and keeps coal-oil therein, which, leaking from the casks,
saturates the ground, and pollutes a subterranean stream from which a
spring on the land of an adjacent proprietor is fed, the latter may main-
tain an action for damages thus suffered by him. Kinnaird v. Standard
Oil Co., 545.

See EASEMENTS; Nuisance, 2

WILLS.

-

1. "LAWFUL HEIRS," AT WHAT TIME TO BE ASCERTAINED. - Where a tes-
tator by his will, gives his property to his sister during her life, and,
"at her decease, said estate to be distributed amongst my lawful heirs,"
the words "amongst my lawful heirs" have reference to the lawful
heirs of the testator at the time of his death, and not to those who might
be such at the time of the death of his sister, the tenant for life. In
re Tucker's Will, 743.

2 CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD "ISSUE."— If a bequest is made of a sum
of money to S. for her life, and at her death to her husband, if then liv.
ing, and if not to her issue, and she survives him, leaving children and
grandchildren, the fund, on her death, vests in her children then living,
and the descendants of her deceased children per stirpes; neither the
administrator of her deceased child, nor the children of any of her chil-
dren then living, has any interest therein. Jackson v. Jackson, 643.
8. CONSTRUCTION-PRECATORY TRUSTS.-When a testatrix bequeaths to
her husband, the father of her children, "all my property, whether
real, personal, or mixed, that he may use the same for the maintenance
and education of my said children, and that he may, from time to time,
advance to each, as he may deem best, to start them in life," and "I do
hereby appoint my beloved husband my executor, with full power to
control, manage, use, convey, sell, and dispose of said property as his
own absolute property, without being required to file or render any ac-
count, or give any bail," the husband will take an absolute estate, not
subject to any trust in favor of such children. Randall v. Randall, 373.
CONFLICT OF LAWS. THE PROBATE OF A WILL GRANTED IN ANOTHER
STATE, and which, by the laws of the state, is local, and does not affect

-

realty in other states, is not admissible in evidence in this state without
re-probate here for the purpose of proving that the power of appoint
ment, authorized to be exercised by will, has been so exercised. Thrasher
Ballard, 894.

See DEVISE; PARENT AND CHILD; POWERS, 2.

WITNESSES.

-

-

1. NON-RESIDENT EXEMPTION FROM SERVICE OF PROCESS. A resident of
one state who comes into another as a witness in a cause pending there
is exempt from the service of process for the commencement of a civil
action against him in the latter state, and the privilege protects him in
staying and returning, provided he acts bona fide, and without unrea-
sonable delay. Bolgiano v. Gilbert Lock Co., 582.

2. STATE CANNOT CONTRADICT ITS OWN WITNESS WHEN. - Where the state
is neither surprised nor prejudiced by the testimony of a witness called
by it, it cannot contradict him by introducing evidence of contradictory
statements made by him out of court. Rhodes v. State, 429.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 2.

WRIT OF POSSESSION.

See EJECTMENT, 8; INJUNCTION, &

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »