Webb v. Portland Manuf'g Co.
29 F. Cas. 506, 3 Sumn. 189 (1838)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The infringement of a legal right, such as a riparian owner's right to the natural flow of a stream, is an actionable injury in itself without proof of actual, perceptible damages. The law presumes damage from the violation of the right, entitling the injured party to at least nominal damages to vindicate that right and prevent its loss through prescription.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Webb, and the defendant, Portland Manufacturing Co., were both mill owners on the same lower dam of a stream.
- Both parties had a right to use the water that flowed naturally to the lower dam to power their respective mills.
- The Portland Manufacturing Co. owned property further up the stream, above the shared dam.
- The company constructed a canal on its upstream property and began diverting a portion of the stream's water.
- This diversion prevented the diverted water from reaching the lower dam where both parties' mills were located.
- The Portland Manufacturing Co. argued that the diversion caused no perceptible or actual damage to Webb's mill operations.
- The company also claimed it was only diverting water that it was otherwise entitled to use at the lower dam.
Procedural Posture:
- Webb filed a bill in equity in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maine, a court of first instance.
- Webb sought an injunction to prohibit the Portland Manufacturing Co. from diverting water from the stream above their shared dam.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the diversion of water from a stream by an upstream riparian owner constitute an actionable legal injury to a downstream mill owner, even if the downstream owner cannot prove any actual, perceptible damage?
Opinions:
Majority - Story, Circuit Justice
Yes, the diversion of water is an actionable injury regardless of proof of actual damage. A foundational principle of common law is that every violation of a legal right is an injury, and where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. The doctrine of 'injuria sine damno'—a legal wrong without damage—is actionable because the law presumes damage whenever a right is violated. If this were not the case, a defendant could, through continuous infringement, establish an adverse right over time, thereby destroying the plaintiff's original right entirely. A riparian owner's right is not to a specific quantity of water, but to the undiminished natural flow of the entire stream to their property. Therefore, any diversion upstream is a direct violation of that right, and the plaintiff is entitled to at least nominal damages to vindicate it and prevent future loss of the right.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the principle that a violation of a legal right is actionable per se, protecting property interests from gradual encroachment that might not cause immediate, measurable harm. By separating the concept of legal injury from actual monetary damages, the court ensures that rights can be defended before they are effectively destroyed by prescription. The case is a cornerstone of American water law, particularly in the eastern states, defining riparian rights as a right to the natural flow of a watercourse rather than ownership of the water itself. This precedent has been crucial in environmental and property law for protecting rights against intangible or difficult-to-quantify harms.
