The  size  of  the  stream,  the  velocity  of  the  current,  the  nature
of  the  bank,  the  character  of  the  soil,  the  necessity  for  the
use,  and  the  general  custom  as  to  usage,  must  all  be  taken  into
consideration.""  If  a  reasonable  use  is  made  of  the  stream,
the  lower  owner  has  no  cause  of  action."^  In  the  case  of  a  small
spring,  which  was  accustomed  to  run  through  another's  land,
it  was  held  that  a  riparian  owner  might  appropriate  the  entire
flow  if  it  were  necessary  to  supply  his  natural  wants,  that  is,
wants  necessary  to  be  supplied  for  the  existence  of  man  and
beast.
"JeHers  vs.  Jeffers,  107  N.  Y.,  650.
"Merrifield  vs.  Worcester,  110  Mass.,  219.
Ulbricht  vs.  Bufaula  Water  Co.,  86  Ala.,  587;  4  L.  R.  A.,  572.
Fulmar  vs.  Williams,  122  Pa.,  191;  1  L.  R.  A.,  603.
«Tlmm  vs.  Bear,  29  Wis.,  265.
Baltimore  vs.  Appold,  42  Ind.,  457.
"Merritt  vs.  Brinkerhoff,  17  Jobns.  (N.  Y.),  306.
Dumont  vs.  Kellogg,  29  Mich.,  420.
Merrifleld  vs.  Worcester,  110  Mass.,  219.
408  BASEMENTS  AND  LICENSES.
THE  GEITEIIAL  RtTLE  IS  THAT  ANY  USE  OF  THE  STBEAM
WHICH  MATERIAXLY  AFFECTS  ITS  QUANTEITY  OB  QUALITY,
AND  PREVENTS  IT  FROM  FLOWING  TO  THE  LOWER  OWNER
IN  ITS  NATURAL  STATE,  IS  AN  UNREASONABLE  USE.
