16 BULLETIN 1207, U. B. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
59 Minn. 436, said, in quoting from the case of O'Brien v. City of 
St. Paul. 25 Minn. 335, at page 336: 
Although we are not prepared to say that in no case can an owner Lawfully 
improve his laud in such a way as to cause the surface waters to How off in 
streams upon the land of another, we do not hesitate to say that he may not 
turn the water in destructive currents upon the adjoining lands. 
Later, in the same opinion, the court said: 
Ii gives each man the common-law right to Improve and enjoy his own prop- 
erty to its fullest extent, but limited by the requirement that he use reasonable 
care in disposing of surface water, which the common law did not always 
require him to do. 
As illustrating the attitude of the courts in the States following the 
common-enemv rule the following extract from the case of Lipes v. 
Hand, 1 X. E. 871, 104 Ind. 503. is given: 
Where the construction of a large ditch enables property owners to carry 
their lateral ditches into it. and to thus secure good drainage without encroach- 
ing on the rights of others, there is a special benefit. This results from the 
rule that one landowner has no right to collect water in a body .and pour it 
upon the land of another. Where a landowner obtains an outlet for lateral 
ditches constructed for the drainage of his land by means of a large ditch or 
by reason of the widening, deepening, and straightening of a natural stream, he 
receives a special benefit, for he is thus provided with means of drainage with- 
out injury to others. * * * It may possibly be true that the appellants, 
under the existing condition of affairs, could lead their lateral ditches into the 
swamps and ponds without appreciable injury to their owners; but as soon as 
these swamps and ponds are drained, as they will be by the contemplate' 1 , im- 
provement, the appellants would no longer have the right to lead their ditches 
to the land reclaimed, since this would be to collect water in artificial channels 
and pour it upon the lands of others to their injury, and this the appellants 
have no right to do. 
The States following the common-enemy rule are Arkansas, Con- 
necticut. Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota. Mis- 
souri. Nebraska, Xew Hampshire. Xew Jersey, Xew Mexico, Xew 
York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia. Washington, and Wis- 
consin. 
The effects of these two rules on drainage work can be shown by 
comparing the methods used in Ohio and Indiana. Ohio follows the 
civil-law rule, and consequently in that State the boundaries of drain- 
age districts are usually limited to land where the rate of flow of the 
drainage water will be accelerated by the improvement. Xo assess- 
ments can be made on lands lying above that' point. Indiana follows 
the common-enemy rule, and in that State the district boundaries 
erally include all lands within the watershed and must include all 
lands which have artificial drainage, although such land-; be many 
feel above the bottom'- where the ditch is. ruder the Indiana de- 
cisions such high lands are under the burden of taking care of the 
surface water which may be artificially drained from them. When 
a ditch is constructed to cwwy such waters the burden is assumed by 
the drainage districts: hence, the high lands are benefited to the ex- 
tent of that burden and can be assessed therefor. 
Under the common-enemy rule high lands do not have as great an 
advantage, and lower lands have not the same burden as under the 
civil-law rule. 
Factors of special benefits. — Since the measure of the benefit de- 
rived from drainage is the increase in tin 1 value 1 of the land, due solely 
to the improvement, all factors which might affect the value of the 
