One case of the artificial accumulation of water on one's land occurs in the case of water which falls upon the roof of a building. Such water cannot well be regarded as surface water, which is collected by natural, not artificial means. Had the building not been erected, most of the water falling thereon would have percolated into the ground.

The owner of a building cannot, by means of gutters, drains, or other methods of construction, collect water which falls on the roof and cause it to pass in a body on his neighbor's land.84 Nor can he discharge it in such proximity to his neighbor's land or building that it necessarily escapes thereon or therein to the latter's injury.85 As to the extent to which he is liable when the water, instead of being collected in a body, merely drips from the eaves of a building upon the neighbor's land, the cases are not in entire accord. A liability in such a case was recognized at common law, as for a nuisance, apart from any question of negligence, indeed before the development

83h. Ante, this section, note 83.

84. Fitzpatrick v. Welch, 174 Mass. 486, 48 L. R. A. 278, 55 N. E. 178; Reedy v. St. Louis Brewing Ass'n. 161 Mo. 523, 53 L. R. A. 805, 61 S. W. 859; Gould v. McKenna, 86 Pa. St. 297, 27 Am. Rep. 705; Trimmer v. Berkheimer, 61 Pa. Super Ct. 269.

85. Beach v. Gaylord, 43 M'nn 476, 45 N. W. 1095; Bellows v Sackett, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 96; Conner v. Woodfill, 126 Ind. 85, 22 Am. St. Repp. 568 25 N. E. 876; Mueller Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. Cohen, 158 Wis. 461. 149 N. W. 154. See Jutte v. Hughes, 67 N. Y. ,267. But see Murphy v. Lally, 173 Mass. 365, 53 N. E. 859.