In the case of water percolating through the ground below the surface in no fixed channel, or of water flowing underground in an unknown channel, the question of the right of a landowner to prevent the passage of water to neighboring land, either by appropriation of the water or otherwise, has been the subject of a great deal of discussion, and the of the lower proprietor. Domat, Civil Law (Cushing's Ed.) Sec. 15S3. But this view is apparently not adopted even in states where the civil-law rule is adopted as to the servitude on the lower proprietor.

54. iSwett v. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439.

55. Post, Sec. 342(a).

56. See editorial note, 26 Harv. Law Rev. 186.

That a landowner may drain surface water from his neighbor's land in the course of the improvement of his own land, see Applegate v. Franklin, 109 Mo. App. 293, 84 S. W. 347, and the comment thereon in 18 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 626.

57. Jacksonville v. Lambert, 62 111. 519; Niagara Oil Co. v. Jackson, 48 Ind. App. 238, 91 N. E. 825; Livezey v. Schmidt, 96 Ky. 441, 29 S. W. 25; Sand Lake v. Allen, 185 Mich. 1, 151 X. W. 705; Gawtry v. Leland, 31 X. J. Eq. 385; Jutte v. Hughes, 67 N. Y. 267; Adams v. Clover Hills Farms. 86 Ore. 140, 167 Pac. 1015; Cros-land v. Borough of Pottsville, 126 Pa. St. 511, 12 Am. St. Rep. 891, 18 Atl. 15; Winn v. Village of Rutland. 52 Vt. 481; Gould, Waters, Sec.Sec. 278, 546.

58. Acton v. Blundell, 12 Mees.

& W. 324; Chasemore v. Richards, persons off the land, being regarded as wrongful,65 as against one desiring to utilize the water for the benefit of his own land.66 Such a criterion seems, however, unsatisfactory as applied to water, such as mineral water, which has frequently but little value for purposes other than sale.67

7 H. L. Cas. 349; Hanson v. Mc-Cue, 42 Cal. 303, 10 Am. Rep. 239; Roath v. Driscoll, 20 Conn. 553, 52 Am. Dec. 352; Stoner v. Patten, 132 Ga. 178, 63 S. E. 897; Edwards v. Haeger, 180 111. 99, 54 N. E. 176; Chase v. S'lverstone, 62 Me. 175, 16 Am. Rep. 419; Ryan v. Quintan, 45 Mont. 521, 124 Pac. 512; Mosier v. Caldwell, 7 Nev. 363; Ocean Grove v. Asbury Park, 40 N. J. Eq. 447, 3 Atl. 168; Delhi v. Youmans, 45 N. Y. 362; Bloodgood v. Ayers, 108 N. Y. 400, 2 Am. St. Rep. 443, 15 N. E. 433; Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio St. 294; Boyce v. Cupper, 37 Ore. 256, 61 Pac. 642; Lybe's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 627, 51 Am. Rep. 542; Williams v. Ladew, 161 Pa. St. 283, 41 Am. St. Rep. 891; Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co., 98 Tex. 146, 66 L. R. A. 738, 107 Am. St. Rep. 620, 81 S. W. 279; Crescent Min. Co. v. Silver King Min. Co., 17 Utah 444, 70 Am. St. Rep. 810, 54 Pac. 244; Herriman Irrig. Co.

59 See Post, this section, notes 71-75.

60. Grand Junction Canal Co. v. Shugar, 6 Ch. App. 483; Ver-dugo Canon Water Co. v. Ver-dugo, 152 Cal. 655, 93 Pac. 1021; Platte Valley Irrigation Co. v. Buckers Irrigation Milling & Improvement Co., 25 Colo. 77, 53 Pac. 334; Emporia v. Soden, 25 Kan. 588, 37 Am. Rep. 265; Bas-sett v. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 43 N. H. 569, 82 Am. Dec. 179; Smith v. City of Brooklyn, 160 N. Y. 45 L. R. A. 664, 54 N. E, 787 (for purpose of sale). But that he may thus prevent the percolating water from reaching a wateroccurs in the reasonable use of his own land,61 or sometimes, in so far as it is for the reasonable use of the water.62 The same idea has been occasionally expressed by the statement that owners of land over water bearing strata have correlative rights as to the use of the water.63

In determining when the interception of percolating water by a landowner, for the purpose of appropriating it to his own uses, is in the reasonable user of his land, or involves a reasonable use of the water, the cases occasionally assert the criterion of beneficial use upon the land on which the appropriation is made,64 an appropriation, especially when made by means of powerful pumps operative over a considerable territory, for the purpose of obtaining water for sale or supply to course, see Hudson v. Dailey, 156 Cal. 617, 105 Pac.. 748; Roberts v. Gribble, 43 Utab 4411, 134 Pac. 1014.

61. Hougan v. Railway Co., 35 Iowa, 558, 14 Am. Rep. 502; Bas-sett v. Salisbury Co., 43 N. H. 569; Schenk v. City of Ann Arbor, 196 Mich. 75, 163 N. W. 109; For-bell v. New York, 164 N. Y. 522, 51 L. R. A. 695, 79 Am. St. Rep. 666, 58 N. E. 644; Hathorn v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 194 N. Y. 326, 87 N. E. 504, 23 L. R. A. N. S. 436, 128 Am. St. Rep. 555; People v. New York Carbonic Acid Gas Co., 196 N. Y. 421, 90 N. E. 441.

62. Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, 99 Am. St. Rep. 35, 64 L. R. A. 236, 70 Pac. 663, 74 Pac. 766; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439: Meeker v. East Orange, 77 N. J. L. 623, 134 Am. St. Rep. 798, 25 L. R. A. N. S. 569, 74 Atl. 379; P. Ballantine & Sons v. Public

Service Corp., 86 N. J. L. 331, L. R. A. 1915A, 369, 91 Atl. 95; Pence v. Carney, 58 W. Va. 296, 112 Am. St. Rep. 963, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 266, 52 S. E. 702. See Willis v. Perry, 92 Iowa, 297, 26 L. R. A. 124, 60 N. W. 727; Erick-son v. Crookston Water Works Co., 100 Minn. 481, 8 L. R. A. (X. S.) 1250, 10 Ann. Cas. 843, 111 N. W. 391, 105 Minn. 182, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650, 117 N. W. 435.

63. Burr v. Maclay Rancho Water Co., 160 Cal. 268, 116 Pac. 715; Patrick v. Smith, 75 Wash. 407, 134 Pac. 1076.

64. That the owner of land over water-bearing strata has a right to use the water on his own land as against another owner seeking to use it elsewhere, see Burr v. Maclay Rancho Water Co., 160 Cal. 268, 98 Pac. 260; Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co., 157 Cal. 256, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 772, 107 Pac. 115.

The owner of land who prevents the passage of percolating- water into his neighbor's land, not by appropriating it, or taking measures to appropriate it, but by merely utilizing the land in a particular way, as for instance, by the digging of mines or the erection of foundations for buildings, without reference to the possible effect on his neighbor's water supply, would seem to be entirely within his rights,68 except perhaps when he has notice of the probability of resulting damage to his neighbor and could avoid all possibility of such damage at a merely nominal expense.68a One should