LAW AS TO A SPRING OF WATER. 175 



aud an incident of property as much as the right to have soil itself in 

 its natural state unaltered by the acts of a neighbouring proprietor, 

 who cannot dig so as to deprive it of the support of his land. But in 

 the much-cousidered case of Acton v. BlundeU, in the Court of Ex- 

 chequer Chamber, a distincfioii is made for ike first time hctivcen loidcr- 

 ground waters and those wltkh flow on the surface ; and it was held that 

 the owner of a piece of land, who has made a well in it, and thereby 

 enjoyed the benefit of under-ground water, but for less than twenty 

 years, has no right of action against a neighbouring proprietor, who, in 

 sinking for and getting coals from his soil in the usual and proper 

 manner, causes the well to become dry. The decision goes no farther. 

 In the present case the water is proved to have been taken ft-om the 

 river after it formed part of its stream, not by the reasonable use of it 

 l)y another riparian proprietor, but by the digging of a well, which is 

 clearly a diversion ; and an action will lie at common law against the 

 Company for the injury which has resulted from that unauthorised act 

 to the known right of the mill-owners. And as to the abstraction of 

 the water, which never did form part of the river, but has been 

 prevented from doing so in its natural course by the excavation of the 

 well, whether the water was part of an underground water-course, or 

 percolated through the strata, we are also of opinion that an action 

 would lie. The mill-owners were entitled to the benefit of the stream 

 in its natural course ; and they are deprived of part of that benefit if 

 the natural supply of the stream is taken away" (7 Exch. 282). 



Lord Eltcnhorouijh C.J. ruled, at Nisi Prius, in BaJston v. Benstcad, 

 that after twenty years nninterrupted enjoyment of a sp'iny of water ^ an 

 cCbsotute right to it is gained J/y the occupier of the close in wliich it issues 

 above ground ; and the owner of an adjoining close cannot lawfully cut 

 a drain whereby the supply of water to the spring is diminished. In 

 Acton V. Blundelt, Tindal C.J. said : " The rule of law which governs 

 the enjoyment of a stream, flowing in its natural course over the sur- 

 face of land belonging to diflFerent proprietors, is well established ; each 

 proprietor of the laud has a right to the advantage of the stream flow- 

 ing in its natural course over his land, to use the same as he pleases, 

 for any purpose of his own, not inconsistent with a similar right in the 

 proprietors of the land above and below ; so that neither can any 

 proprietor above diminish the quantity or injure the quality of the 

 water which would otherwise naturally descend, nor can any proprietor 

 below throw back the water without the licence or the grant of the 

 proprietor above. The rule is laid down in those precise terms by the 

 Court of King's Bench, in Mason v. Hitl, and substantially is declared 

 by Sir John Leach V.C. in the case of Wright v. Howard, and such we 



