Defiance Fruit Co. v. Fox

74 A. 302, 76 N.J. Eq. 147, 1909 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 47
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedJuly 16, 1909
StatusPublished

This text of 74 A. 302 (Defiance Fruit Co. v. Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Defiance Fruit Co. v. Fox, 74 A. 302, 76 N.J. Eq. 147, 1909 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 47 (N.J. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinion

Leamtng, Y. C.

On October 26th, 1905, a bill was filed by Defiance Eruit Company (hereinafter referred to for convenience as “the company”) for an injunction to restrain Thomas C. Eox (hereinafter referred to as “Eox”) from raising the water in his mill pond at Willow Grove, Few Jersey, to a height which was alleged to injure a cranberry bog on the land of the company situate above [148]*148the mill pond on either side of a natural stream which flows into the pond. Eox answered asserting that he and his predecessors in title had maintained the water, in the pond at the height complained of for over twenty years prior to the date of the filing of the bill. When the cause came on for final hearing, it was ascertained that the issues involved were purely legal rights, the existence of which were in substantial dispute, and this court, in consequence, refused to entertain jurisdiction until the legal rights in dispute were determined at law; the bill was, however, retained, pending a proposed action at law, because of the absence of any denial of equity jurisdiction on the part of defendant. Accordingly the company brought an action of trespass against Eox, and after trial a verdict was rendered in favor of defendant. Thereafter the company brought another similar action at law against Eox, and before the trial of that action Eox, by leave of this court, filed, in the original equity suit, a cross-bill in the nature of an original bill in which the history of the litigation up to that time was recited and the suits at law were alleged to be vexatious, and the company and others in interest were made parties to the end that this court should make a decree determining the level to which the water in the mill pond could be lawfully maintained. The several defendants to the cross-bill answered and joined in the prayer of the cross-bill that this court determine the level at which the waters of the pond could be lawfully held by the mill owner.

The mill pond is formed by a dam which interrupts the flow of a natural stream known as "Scotland Branch,” and the cranberry bog of the company is on either side of that stream a mile or more above the dam. The dam has been maintained by Eox and his predecessors in title for upwards of fifty years, and the two mills now owned and operated by Eox have during that time been supplied with power from the -waters of the pond.

The testimony adduced at the hearing, and especially when considered in connection with a view of the premises made by me at the request of the respective counsel, leaves no doubt in my mind but that, with the water in the pond maintained at the height at which Eox claims the right to maintain it, the natural and beneficial flow of the stream passing through the property [149]*149of tlie company is interrupted and interfered with by the back water occasioned by the dam in a manner and degree which materially injures the property of the company. This fact is so manifest that I think it unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of the evidence further than to state that the level at which Eox claims the right to maintain the water' in the pond is above the level of the bed of the stream passing through the company’s bog; when this level is raised to the extent necessary to enable the stream to discharge the Avaters which flow down it under normal conditions—about six inches—the Avater overflows the banks of the stream at the lower or southerly portion of the bog and also prevents proper drainage of other parts of the bog. In other words, the water of the pond, when maintained at the level at which Eox claims the right, operates to interrupt the natural flow of the stream through the company’s land and to back water on its bog.

It is entirely clear that the company is entitled to have this stream discharge its waters in its natural course and in its natural Avay except to the extent to which Eox has established a prescriptive right to interrupt the natural flow. As the right of Eox to thus interfere Avith the natural and beneficial flow of the stream through the company’s property is claimed by him to exist by prescription, and as both parties have joined in the prayer for this court to determine the level at which Eox may lawfully maintain the waters of his pond, the difficult task has been undertaken to ascertain the conditions which have existed, during the tAventy years preceding the commencement of this suit. The inquiry has necessitated the examination of a great number of Avitnesses touching early conditions, and, as may well have been anticipated, the testimony is in radical conflict in many respects. At the conclusion of the hearing the respective counsel joined in a request that I should view the premises and should also make independent investigations of my oato, assisted by an engineer of my oavu choice, and a written stipulation of that nature has been filed. This unusual course has been adopted by reason of the extreme difficulty in ascertaining the exact truth touching many things concerning which the testimony Avas in conflict or was incomplete which could be accurately ascertained [150]*150by a view and measurements or demonstrations in my presence. I have accordingly visited the premises twice in the presence of respective counsel and have been assisted by a millwright of my selection employed by the respective counsel for that purpose. The investigations which I have made on the premises in dispute in the presence of respective counsel, have been of great service to me in determining the force to be properly given to much of the testimony, and while I somewhat doubt the propriety of pursuing this course in ordinary cases, I am fully convinced that it is the best course which could have been adopted in this case to insure the highest practicable degree of accuracy of conclusions.

The level at which Eox claims the prescriptive right to maintain the waters of the mill pond is marked on a horizontal string-piece which forms the top or cap of the wing of a bridge at the easterly end of the dam. This string-piece is not quite level and the water of the pond submerges the northerly end of the string-piece first. When the northerly half of the string-piece is submerged and the southerly half of .the upper surface of the string-piece is still exposed, the water is at the level at which Eox claims it has been maintained for a working head during the twenty years next preceding the commencement of this suit. In the upper surface of the string-piece referred to, about midway between its ends, a nail is driven to designate the point at which the water of the pond will stand when at the working head claimed by Eox. A number of witnesses have testified touching this string-piece, and assert that it has been where it now is for more than twenty years, and that the level of the centre of the upper surface of that timber represents the level at which the pond has been held for working purposes during all of that time, whenever sufficient water could be held .in the pond to maintain that level. Other witnesses assert to the contrary, and some testimony indicates that this string-piece was placed where it now is less than twenty years ago. It is urged that the abutment of the bridge with which the end of this string-piece connects was washed away within twenty years, and that any string-piece there at that time was necessarily removed or changed. A number of other witnesses fix the level of the pond during the past twenty years by [151]*151the statement that the pond was always maintained, when sufficient water could be had, at about the level of what is known as the Dare lot. The Dare lot is the sideyard of a house known as the Dare house.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A. 302, 76 N.J. Eq. 147, 1909 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defiance-fruit-co-v-fox-njch-1909.