Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Crescent Mining Co. v. Silver King Mining Co.

Supreme Court of Utah · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureInjunctionsWater rightsPrescriptionTrespasspercolating waterartificial watercourseappropriation

Facts

Plaintiff built a dam at Shadow Lake in 1886, impounded water there, and diverted lake water by pipe to its mine. One source feeding the lake was water emerging from defendant's Jeanette or Thayne tunnel, but the lower court found that this water was percolating water developed by the excavation of the tunnel on defendant's patented mining claims, not water from a subterranean stream with a defined course, and that the tunnel was an artificial watercourse rather than a natural source of supply of the lake. Defendant later dug a trench and laid a pipe line across plaintiff's barren, rocky, uncultivated, unused mining claims, but removed no material from the land and caused no damage except nominally. The lower court also found plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law for that trespass.

Issue

Whether plaintiff acquired any right, by appropriation or prescription, to require percolating water developed in defendant's tunnel on defendant's patented mining claims to continue flowing into Shadow Lake, and whether equity should enjoin defendant's trenching and pipe line across plaintiff's mining claims where the trespass caused only nominal injury and legal damages were adequate.

Rule

Percolating water with no defined subterranean channel, bed, or banks belongs to the owner of the soil, is not subject to appropriation while it remains on that owner's land, and no prescriptive right arises unless the claimant's use invaded the owner's rights so that the owner had a cause of action. Where such waters are gathered into an artificial tunnel or drain for the owner's convenience, another's long use after the water leaves the owner's land does not create a perpetual right to compel continued flow. Equity will not enjoin a mere trespass to realty absent irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, or some special equitable feature; nominal injury with a complete remedy at law is insufficient, especially where an injunction would inflict disproportionate harm on the defendant and no appreciable benefit on the plaintiff.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Granite Vein Mining, which owns patented claims outside Ely, Nevada, drove a drainage adit through its own mountain property. The adit exposed diffuse seepage from surrounding rock, and the water then ran off Granite Vein's land into a basin where Red Mesa Milling captured and used it for twelve years. Granite Vein later installed pumps on its own claims to recirculate the seepage before it left its land.

If Red Mesa sues to compel Granite Vein to allow the same flow to continue, which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that percolating water on the owner's land is part of the soil, not subject to appropriation there by others, and that no prescriptive right arises unless the claimant's use invaded the owner's rights so as to give the owner a cause of action. Here, Red Mesa used the water only after it left Granite Vein's land, so that use was not adverse to Granite Vein while the water remained on Granite Vein's claims. Because Granite Vein had no actionable claim during that period, prescription could not run. (Derived from Crescent Mining Co. v. Silver King Mining Co. (n.d.).)