42. 3 Kent, Comm. 439; Mason v. Hill, 5 Barn. & Adol. 1; Acton v. Blundell, 12 Mees. & W. 324; Tampa Water Works v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586, 33 L. R. A. 376, 53 Am. St. Rep. 262, 20 So. 7S0; White v. East bake Land Co., 96 Ga. 415, 51 Am. St. Rep. 141, 23 S. E. 393; Gehlen v. Knorr, 101 Iowa, 700, 36 L. R. A. 697, 63 Am. St. Rep. 416, 70 N. W. 757; Elliot v. Fitchburg R. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 191; Norman v. Kusel, 97 Neb. 400, 150 N. W. 201; Garwood v. New York Cent. & Hudson River R. Co., 83 N. Y. 400; Benton v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277, 39 L. R. A. 107, 61 Am. St. Rep. 912, 49 Pac. 495.

43. Miner v. Gilmour, 12 Moore, P. C. 156; Nuttall v. Brace-well, L. R. 2 Exch. 1; Stein v. Burden, 29 Ala. 127, 65 Am. Dec. 394; Ferrea v. Knipe, 28 Cal. 341, 87 Am. Dec. 128; Broadmoor Dairy & Live Stock Co. v. Brook-side Water & Improvement Co.,

24 Colo. 541, 52 Pac. 792; Evans v. Merriweather, 4 111. 492, 38 Am. Dec. 106; Spence v. McDonough, 77 Iowa, 460, 42 N. W. 371; Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Ry. Co., 86 Ky. 45, 9 Am. St. Rep. 263, 5 S. W. 49; Anthony v. Lap-ham, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 175; Arnold v. Foot, 12 Wend. (N. Y) 330; Hough v. Porter, 51 Ore. 318, 95 Pac. 372, 98 Pac. 1083, 102 Pac. 728; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller, 112 Pa. St. 34, 3 Atl. 780; Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone Ditch Co., 26 S. Dak. 307, 128 N. W. 596; Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Tex. 304, 84 Am. Dec. 631. But see Hough v. Doylestown, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 333; Elliot v. Fitchburg R. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 191; Lawrie v. Silsby, 76 Vt. 240, 104 Am. St. Rep. 927, 56 Atl. 1106; editorial note, 10 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 65.

44. Embrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 353; Sampson v. Hoddinott, 1 C. B. N. S. 590; Gould v. Stafford,

Real Property.

[Sec. 330 otherwise expressed, his use of the water must not be unreasonable, having regard to a like use by the lower proprietors.45

What is a reasonable use for manufacture or the like, consistent with a like reasonable use by lower proprietors, is to be determined by such considerations as the width and depth of the bed, the volume of water, the fall thereof, previous usage, and, it is sometimes said, the state of improvement in manufactures and the useful arts,46 and even the comparative benefit of the use to the parties concerned,47 and this is generally a question

77 Cal. 66, 18 Pac. 879; Turner v. James Canal Co., 155 Cal. 82, 99 Pac. 520; Rudd v. Williams, 43 111. 385; Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Ry. Co., 86 Ky. 44, 9 Am. St. Rep. 263, 5 S. W. 49; Gould v. Boston Duck Co., 13 Gray (Mass.) 442; Farrell v. Richards, 30 N. J. Eq. 511; Clinton v. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511, 7 Am. Rep. 373; Garwood v. New York Central & Hudson River R. Co., 83 N. Y. 400, 38 Am. Rep. 452; Wheatley v. Chrisman, 24 Pa. St. 298, 64 Am. Dec. 657; Tolle v. Correth, 31 Tex. 362, 98 Am. Dec. 540; Nelson v. Sponer, 46 Wash. 14, 123 Am. St. Rep. 910, 89 Pac. 155.

45. Ulbricht v. Eufaula Water Co., 86 Ala. 587, 4 L. R. A. 572, 11 Am. St. Rep. 72, 6 So. 78; Wadsworth v. Tillotson, 15 Conn. 366, 39 Am Dec. 391; Evans v. Merriweather, 4 111. 492, 38 Am. Dec. 106; Davis v. Getchell, 50 Me. 602, 79 Am Dec. 636, note; Pitts v. Lancaster Mills, 13 Metc. (Mass.) 156; Elliot v. Fitchburg R. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 191; Chandler v. Howland, 7 Gray (Mass.) 350, 66 Am. Dec. 487; the effect that a municipality located on the banks of a stream may, as being a riparian proprietor, take therefrom sufficient water to supply not only the municipal needs but also the domestic requirements of the individual inhabitants, though these latter are, to but a limited extent, if at all, themselves riparian proprietors.53 Conceding that the owner of riparian land cannot, himself, appropriate water for consumption upon other land, he cannot, as against other riparian proprietors, authorize another person to do so, and any attempted transfer of the right of appropriation, if made to one who is not a riparian proprietor, is invalid,54 while if ing the view referred to, editorial note in 12 Mich. Law Rev. at p. 305.

Merritt v. Brink roff, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 306, 8 Am. Dec. 404; Jones v. Conn, 39 Ore. 30, 54 L. R. A. 630, 87 Am. St. Rep. 634; Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone Ditch Co., 15 S. Dak. 519, 91 N. W. 352; Snow v. Parsons, 28 Vt. 67 Am. Dec. 723; Shotwell v. Dodge, 8 Wash. 337, 36 Pac. 254.

46. Mason v. Hoyle, 56 Conn. 255, 14 Atl. 786; Pool v. Lewis. 41 Ga. 162, 5 Am. Rep. 526; Davis v. Getchell, 50 Me. 602, 79 Am. Dec. 636; Pitts v. Lancaster Mills, 13 Metc. (Mass.) 156; Thurber v. Martin, 2 Gray (Mass.) 394, 61 Am. Dec. 468; Mason v. Whitney, 193 Mass. 152, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 289, 118 Am. St. Rep. 488, 78 N. E. 881; Hayes v. Waldron, 44 N. H. 580, 84 Am. Dec. 105; White v. Whitney Mfg. Co., 60 S. C. 254, 38 S. E. 456; Lawrie v. Silsby, 82 Vt. 505, 74 Atl. 94; Timm v. Bear, 29 Wis. 254.

47. Hayes v. Waldron, 44 N. H. 580, 84 Am. Dec. 105; Snow v. Parsons, 28 Vt. 459. See 59 University of Penna. Law Rev. p. 381, article by Professor Francis H. Bohlen.

48. Heilbron v. 76 Land & Water Co., 80 Cal. 189, 22 Pac. 62; Pool v. Lewis, 41 Ga. 162, 5 Am. Rep. 526; Batavia Mfg. Co. v. Newton Wagon Co., 91 111. 230; Elliot v. Fitchburg R. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 191; Gillis v. Chase, 67 N. H. 161, 68 Am. St. Rep. 645, 31 Atl. 181; Garwood v. New York Cent. & Hudson R. Co., 83 N. Y. 400, 38 Am. Rep. 452; Hetrich v. Deachler, 6 Pa. St. 32; White v. Whitney Mfg. Co., S. C. 254, 38 S. E. 465; Snow v. Parsons, 28 Vt. 459, 67 Am. Dec. 723.

49. Embrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 353; Harrop v. Hirst, L. R. 4 Exch. 3; McCartney v. Londonderry & Lough Swilly Rwy., (1904) App. Cas. 301; Webb v. Portland Mfg. Co., 3 Sumn. 189, 197; Ulbricht v. Eufaula Water Co., 86 Ala. 587, 4 L. R. A. 572, 11 Am. St. Rep. 72, 6 So. 78: Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 439, 38 L. R. A. 181, 49 Pac. 577; Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327, 11 L. R. A. N. S. 1062, 88 Pac. 978; Parker v. Gris-wold, 17 Conn. 288, 42 Am. Dec. 739; Watson v. New Milford Water Co., 71 Conn. 442, 42 Atl. 265; Chestatee Pyrites Co. v.