Cavenders Creek Gold Min. Co., 118 Ga. 255, 45 S. E. 267; Southern Marble Co. v. Darnell, 94 Ga. 231, 21 S. E. 531; Plumleigh v. Dawson, 6 111. 544, 41 Am. Dec. 199; Blanchard v. Baker, 8 Me. 253, 23 Am. Dec. 504; Munroe v. Stickney, 48 Me. 462; Bolivar Mfg. Co. v. Neponset Mfg. Co., 16 Pick. (Mass.) 241; Newhall v. Iveson, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 595; 54 Am. Dec. 790; Lund v. New Bedford, 121 Mass. 286; Brown v. Ashley, 16 Nev. 311; Blodgett v. Stone, 60 N. H. 167; Paterson v. East Jersey Water Co., 74 N. J. Eq. 49, 70 Atl. 472, 77 N. J. Eq. 588, 78 Atl. 734; Amsterdam Knitting Co. v. Dean, 162 N. Y. 278, 56 N. E. 1123; New York Rubber Co. v. Rothcry, 132 N. Y. 293, 28 Am. St. Rep. 575, 30 N. E. 841; Gilzinger v. Saugerties Water Co., 66 Hun. (N. Y.) 173, 21 N. Y. Supp. 121. 142 N. Y. 633, 37 N. E. 566; Clark v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 145 Pa. 438, 27 Am. St. Rep. 710, 22 Atl. S89; Chatfield v. Wilson, 27 Vt. 670; Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 26 L. R. A. 425, 38 Pac. 147; Roberts v. Martin, 72 W. Va. 92, 77 S. E. 35; as a reason for his right of action in the absence of actual damage, that otherwise the appropriation might continue for the prescriptive period, and so result in the creation of an easement to appropriate. But if he had no right of action on account of the appropriation, no prescriptive right to appropriate could well arise against him, and consequently a right of action is unnecessary for his protection in that regard, except that, were there no right of action in the absence of actual damage, he might have some difficulty, after the lapse of the prescriptive period, in showing that he suffered no actual damage and had consequently no right of action during such period. The more satisfactory ground for recognizing a right of action apart from any actual damage is, as above indicated, that he has a right to have the water flow past his land as it has been accustomed to flow, without any unreasonable diminution in the quantity thereof, and an unreasonable appropriation by an upper proprietor involves an infringement of this right, irrespective of the resulting damage.

- For use on non riparian land. While the proprietor of land abutting on a stream, a riparian proprietor, has the right, to a qualified extent, to appropriate the water of the stream, he can, in most jurisdictions, appropriate it for use only upon, or in connection with, the riparian land.50 He can, accordingly, not utilize it for purposes of sale and distribution

McEvoy v. Gallagher, 107 Wis. 331, 83 N. W. 633. Contra, King v. Danville, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 1188, 107 S. W. 1189. There is also apparently a dictum, contra, in a late California case. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irr. Co. v. Fresno Flume & Irr. Co., 158 Cal. 626, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 832, 112 Pac. 182. And see lower owner to have the water flow past his land as it has been accustomed to flow is not infringed by either of such actions on the part of the owner above him.

Longmire v. Yakima Highlands etc. Co., 95 Wash. 302, 163 Pac. 782.

50. McCartney v. Londonderry & Lough Swilly Rwy. Co. (1904) App. Cas. 301; Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327; Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal Co., 155 Cal. 59, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391, 99 Pac. 502; Williams v.

Wadsworth, 51 Conn. 277; Osborne v Norwalk, 77 Conn. 663. 60 Atl. 645; Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 60 L. R. A. 889, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647, 93 N. W. 781; Paterson v. East Jersey-Water Co., 74 N. J. Eq. 40, 70 Atl. 472, 77 N J. Eq. 588, 78 At!. 1134; Garwood v. New York Cent. & Hudson R. R. Co., 83 N. Y. 400. 38 Am. Rep. 452; Scranton Gas & Water Co. v. Del. Lack. & W. R. Co., 240 Pa. 604, 47 L. R. A. N. S. 710, 88 Atl. 24; Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 589, 70 L. R. A. 964, 107 Am. St. Rep. 653, 86 S. W. 738; Kirkland v. Cochrane, 87 Wash. 528, 151 Pac. 1082; Roberts v. Martin, 72 W. Va. 92, 77 S. E. 535.

That flood waters, not being a regular part of the stream, can be freely taken by any person, see Gallatin v. Corning Irrig. Co., 163 Cal. 405, 126 Pac. 864; Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, at p. 373, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647, 60 L. R. A. 889, 93 N. W. 781; Contra, Longmire v. Yakima Highlands etc. Co., 95 Wash. 302, 163 Pac. 782. As to flood waters, generally, see editorial notes in 27 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 476, 12 Mich. Law Rev. at p. 159 and also note in 25 L. R. A. at p. 531, and post, Sec. 341(d), notes 50-52a.

51. Swindon Waterworks Co. v. Wilts & Berks Canal Navigation

Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 697; Ulbricht v. Eufaula Water Co., 86 Ala. 587; City of Emporia v. Soden, 25 Kan. 588, 37 Am. Rep. 265; Stock v Hillsdale, 155 Mich. 375, 119 N. W. 435; Paterson v. East Jersey Water Co., 74 N. J. Eq. 40, 70 Atl. 472, 77 N. J. Eq. 588, 78 Atl. 1134; McCarter v. Hudson County Water Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 695, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 197, 10 Ann. Cas. 116, 118 Am. St. Rep. 754, 65 Atl. 489; Lord v. Meadville Water Co., 135 Pa. 122, 8 L. R. A. 202, 20 Am. St. Rep. 864, 19 Atl. 1007; Consol. Water Supply Co. v. State Hospital, 66 Pa. Super. Ct. 610; New Whatcom v. Fairbaven Land Co., 24 Wash. 493, 54 L. R|. A. 190, 64 Pac. 735. See Mott v. Consumers' Water Co., 188 Pa. 521, 41 Atl. 611.

52. Stratton v. Mt. Hermon Boys School, 216 Mass. 83, 103 N. E. 87; Gillis V. Chase, 67 N. H. 161, 68 Am. St. Rep. 645, 31 Atl. 18; Jones v. Conn, 39 Ore. 30, 87 Am. St. Rep. 534, 64 Pac. 855, 65 Pac. 1068; Lawrie v. Sils-by, 76 Vt. 240, 104 Am. St. Rep 927, 56 Atl. 1106, 82 Vt. 505, 74 Atl. 94. Such appears to be the result of Elliott v. Fitchburg Rwy., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 191, 57 Am. Dec. 85, where however the fact that the water was appropriated for a non riparian use is not mentioned. See, as supportR. P.-72.

In Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern R. Co., 86 Ky. 44, 9 Am. St. Rep. 263, 5 S. W. 49; Louisville R. Co. v. Beauchamp, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 398, 40 S. W. 679; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller, 112 Pa. 34, 3 Atl. 780, it was assumed that a railroad company owning riparian land could take water for the use of its engines, and in Harris v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 153 N. Car. 542, 31 L. R. A. N. S. 18, 68 Am. St. Rep. 645, 69 S. E. 623; Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Shriver, 101 Kan. 257, 166 Pac. 519, it was so decided, Sandwich v. Gt. Northern R. Co., L. R. 10 Ch. Div. 707, to this effect, is overruled by McCartney v. Londonderry & Lough Swilly Rwy. (1904) App. Cas. 301. And Markleton Hotel Co. v. Connells-ville & S. L. Rwy., 242 Pa. St. 569, 89 Atl. 703, is opposed to such a view.