Lord  Chelmsford,  however,  does  not  rest  his  decision  on
this  poiat,  and  the  eases  must  be  taken  as  undoubtedly
conflicting.  The  preponderance  of  authority  would  cer-
tainly seem  in  favour  of  the  view  of  the  Court  ia  Nuttal
V.  Braceicell  and  The  Stockport  Waterworks  v.  Potter}

A  riparian  owner  is  not  only  entitled  to  have  the  waters  Liability  to
of  a  stream  passing  through  his  lands  flow  to  him  in  its  ^"ter^  ^°°'^
natural  state  so  far  as  it  is  a  benefit  to  him,  but  he  is  also
bound  to  submit  to  receive  it  so  far  as  it  is  a  nuisance  to
him  by  its  tendency  to  flood  his  lands.^  Unless,  therefore,
the  flow  of  the  stream  is  increased  or  diverted  to  his
prejudice  by  some  unauthorized  act,  either  of  the  pro-
prietors above  or  below  him,  he  has  no  remedy,  but  must
submit  to  what  is  the  result  of  natural  causes.
Thus  where  a  stream  becomes  by  natural  causes  silted  up
or  choked  with  reeds,  and  in  consequence  overflows  adjoin-

1  See  Sollcer  v.  Forrit,  L.  R.,  3  1037;   Wood^.  Waud,  3  Ex.  748.
Ex.  107;  JBeestonv.  Weate,  per  Lord  ■  Per  Blackburn,  J.,  m  Mason  v.
Campbell,  C.  J.,  5  E.  &  B.  986;  Shrewsbury  Mail.  Co.,  L.  K.,  6  Q.
Magor  v.   Cliadwick,    11   A.   &   E.  B.  582.   Seealso  fFilsonv.  Waddell,

571 ;  SuUllfe  v.  Booth,  9  Jiir.,  N.  S.  2  App.  Gas.  95.
Digitized  by  Microsoft®


128


OF    NATURAL    RIGHTS   OF   WATEE.
Iiiability  for
escape  and
overfloTv  of
water.
