Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/165

 PART II.] ACTS WITHIN THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 174. Thus it is the better opinion that a railroad company is liable for throwing back surface water by the erection of an embank- ment on its land ; x and also is liable if it collects surface water in one channel, and in this manner discharges it upon plain- tiff's land, although the total volume of the flow is not thereby increased. 2 Likewise railroad companies are liable for damages caused by obstructing drains and closing ditches, whereby the flow of water is impeded and crops are destroyed. 3 § 174. If the person claiming compensation is not the full owner of the property appropriated, it is sufficient Wh , to entitle him to compensation that he have some person al- right or privilege therein secured by grant, which the full right or privilege is injured or abridged by the ap- owner - propriation. 4 But that he should have some legal rights in the property is necessary ; 5 and it has accordingly been held that unavoidably obstructing the navigation of a river during the mac R. R. Co. v. Reany, 42 Md. 117; Ten Eyck v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 18 N. J. L. 200; Story v. New York El. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 122; Telegraph Co. v. Electric R'y Co., 93 Tenn. 492. 1 Shane v. Kansas City, St. Jo. & C. B. R. R. Co., 71 Mo. 237 ; Car- riger v. East Tennessee V. & G. R. R. Co., 7 Lea (Tenn.), 388 ; Indianapo- lis B. & W. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 52 Ind. 428 ; Toledo W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Morrison, 71 111. 616 ; Weaver v. Mississippi, etc., Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534 ; Balto. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. Hac- kett, 87 Md. 224 ; see Rau v. Minne- sota Valley R. R. Co., 13 Minn. 442. Contra, Morrison v. Buckport & B. R. R. Co., 67 Me. 353 ; Hamlin ». Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 61 Wis. 515. See Benson v. Chicago & Q. R. R. Co., 78 Mo. 504 ; and compare Mover v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 88 N. Y. 351. 2 McCormick v. Kansas City, St. Jo. & C. B. R. R. Co., 70 Mo. 360 ; S. C, 57 Mo. 433 ; G. C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Donahoo, 59 Tex. 128. Com- 10 pare Eaton ». Boston, C. & M. R. R., 51 N. H. 504. 3 Bourdierc. Morgan L. & T. R. R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 947 ; Waterman v. Connecticut & P. Rivers R. R. Co., 30 Vt. 610 ; Mississippi Central R. R. Co. v. Caruth, 51 Miss. 77. Also, for draining wells by excavations along its line, although no part of plaintiff's land is taken, Sheldon v. B. & A. R. R. Co., 172 Mass. 180. 4 Story v. New York Elevated R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 122, 168. When a water company is charter- ed with the right to take and use the waters of a stream on making com- pensation, the owner of a mill-race who has purchased the right to use the water, of which the flow is di- minished by the action of the water company, has an incorporeal right for which he is entitled to compensation. Lycoming Gas and Water Co. v. Moyer, 99 Pa. St. 615. 6 See St. Louis R. R. Co. v. North- western St. Louis Ry. Co., 69 Mo. 65. 145