29. Crabtree v. Baker, 75 Ala. 91, 51 Am. Rep. 424; Galbreath v. Hopkins, - Cal. -, 113 Pac. 174; Dickinson v. Worcester, 7 Allen (Mass.) 19; Yerex v. Eine-der, 86 Mich. 24, 24 Am. St. Rep. 113, 48 N. W. 875; Davis v. Lond-green, 8 Neb. 43; Rice v. Norfolk & C. R. Co., 130 N. C. 375, 41 S. E. 1031; Butler v. Peck. 16 Ohio St. 334, 88 Am. Dec. 452; Brandenburg v. Zeigler, 62 S. C. 18, 55 L. R. A. 414, 89 Am. St. Rep. 887, 39 S. E. 790; Noyes v. Cosselman, 29 Wash. 635, 92 Am. St. Rep. 937, 70 Pac. 61.

Although one cannot cause surface water to flow from his land on the land of his neighbor in a new channel or at a new place, he may, it seems, in states in which the common-law doctrine, so called, as to surface waters, is accepted,31 erect barriers or make improvements upon his land, on the edge thereof, so as to cause the water, which would otherwise flow upon his land from higher land, to flow off upon other land on which otherwise it would not have flowed.32 And there are occasional dicta or suggestions, in such states, to the effect that surface water which has come on one's land from other land may, by his erection of barriers or making of improvements, be made to flow on neighboring land on which it would otherwise not flow.33 Whether, however, one should be allowed to cast surface water upon another's land at any place or in any quantity, merely because it comes from land belonging to a third person, appears to be most questionable.34-35

30. That he is so liable, see White v. Chapin, 12 Allen (Mass.) 516; Freudstein v. Heine, 6 Mo. App. 287; Chapel v. Smith, 80 Mich. 100, 45 N. W. 69. Contra, Peck v. Goodberlett, 109 N. Y. 180, 16 N. E. 350 (dictum); Riverside Cotton Mills v. Lanier, 102 Va. 148, 45 S. E. 875. And see Jontz v. Northup, 157 Iowa, 6, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 967, 137 N. W. 1056; Bailey v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 25 S. D. 200, 126 N. W. 268.

31. Post, Sec. 341(d)

32. Parks v. Newburyport, 10 Gray (Mass.) 28; Bowlsby v. Speer, 31 N. J. L. 351, 86 Am. Dec. 216; Barkley v. Wilcox, 86 N. Y. 140, 40 Am. Rep. 519; Jordan v. St. Paul, M., & M. R. Co., 42 Minn. 172, 6 L R. A. 573, 43 N. W. 489; Clauson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 106 Wis. 308, 82 N. W. 146; Johnson v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Rwy. Co., 80 Wis. 641, 27 Am. St. Rep. 76, 14 L. R. A. 495, 50 N. W. 771.

33. Gannon v. Hargadon, 10 Allen (Mass.) 106; Sullivan v. Browning, 67 N. J. Eq. 391, 58 Atl. 302; Pettigrew v. Evansville, 25 Wis. 223, 3 Am. Rep. 50 (dictum); Shaw v. Ward, 131 Wis. 646, 11 Ann. Cas. 1139, 111 N. W. 671.

34-35. That one can do so is negatived in Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Richardson, 42 Okla. 457, 141 Pac. 1107. And the afiirmaOne cannot remove natural barriers so as to cause to flow on his neighbor's land water which would otherwise have flowed in a different direction.36

- (d) Obstruction of discharge. The question whether the owner of land has a right to have surface water drain off from his land upon adjacent lower land, or whether the owner of the lower land may make such improvements on his land as will prevent the natural flow of surface water thereon from the land lying above it, has been differently decided in different jurisdiction-. In some states the rule of the civil law has been adopted, according to which land on which surface water naturally flows from another tenement is regarded as subject to a servitude of receiving such flow, and consequently the owner has no right, by any erection or improvement, to prevent the escape thereon of water from the higher land.37 In other jurisdictions, what is known as the tive view is criticized in 4 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 506, partly on the assumption that surface water on one's land belongs to him, an assumption which does not appear to be correct. See Ballard v. Tomlinson, 29 Ch. Div. 115. But the ownership of the water is properly immaterial on the question of one's right to cast it on another's land.

36. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Windham, 126 Ala. 552, 28 So. 392; Wood v. Moulton, 146 Cal. 317, 80 Pac. 92; Heier v. Krull, 160 Cal. 441, 117 Pac. 530; Dayton v. Drainage Com'rs., 128 111. 271, 21 N. E. 198; Fenton & Thompson R. Co. v. Adams, 221 111. 201, 112 Am. St. Rep. 71, 77 N. E. 531; Dorr v. Simerson, 127 Iowa, 551, 108 N. W. 806; Valentine v. Widman, 156 Iowa, 172, injury to the upper proprietor, and cannot in any case obstruct a natural channel for the flow of water.43

135 N. W. 599; Kaufman v. Len-ker, 164 Iowa, 689, 146 N. W. 823; O'Connor v. Hogan, 140 Mich. 613, 104 N. W. 29; Cronin v. Payne, 157 Mich. 104, 121 N. W. 290; Erhard v. Wagner, 104 Minn. 258, 116 N. W. 577; Parker v. Norfolk & C. R. Co., 123 N. C. 71, 31 S. E. 381; Thompson v. Andrews, 39 S. D. 477, 165 N. W. 9; Noyes v. Cosselman, 29 Wash. 635, 92 Am. St. Rep. 937, 70 Pac. 61.

37. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Keyton, 148 Ala. 675, 41 So. 918; Gray v. McWilliams, 98 Cal. 157, 21 L. R. A. 593, 35 Am. St. Rep. 163, 32 Pac. 976; Sanguinetti v. Pock, 136 Cal. 466, 89 Am. St. Rep. 169, 69 Pac. 98; Farkas v. Towns, 103 Ga. 150, 68 Am. St. Rep. 88, 29 S. E. 700; Gillham v. Madison County R. Co., 49 111.

"common-law rule"38 obtains, according to which the ordinary right of an owner of land to make any use whatever of his land, either by erections thereon or changes in the surface, is regarded as independent of the effect which such erections or changes may have in causing water which naturally flows off on his land to collect or flow on other land.39

484, 95 Am. Dec. 627; Pinkstaff v. Steffy, 216 111. 406, 75 N. E. 163; Matteson v. Tucker, 131 Iowa, 511, 107 N. W. 600; Trumbo v. Pratt, 148 Iowa, 195, 126 N. W. 1122; Johnson v. Marcum, 152 Ky. 629, 153 S. W. 959; Martin v. Jett, 12 La. 501, 32 Am. Dec. 120; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hackett, 87 Md. 224, 39 Atl. 510; Boyd v. Conklin, 54 Mich. 583, 52 Am. Rep. 831; Launstein v. Launstein, 150 Mich. 524, 121 Am. St. Rep. 635, 114 N. W. 883; Porter v. Durham, 74 N. C. 767; Butler v. Peck, 16 Ohio St. 334, 88 Am. Dec. 452; Tootle v. Clifton, 22 Ohio St. 247, 10 Am. Rep. 732; Kauffman v. Griesemar, 26 Pa. St. 407, 67 Am. Dec. 437; Thompson v. Andrews, 39 S. D. 477, 165 N. W. 9; Garland v. Aurin, 103 Tenn. 555, 48 L. R. A. 862, 76 Am. St. Rep. 699, 53 S. W. 940.