Cited by

The case comes squarely within the rule announced in Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632.

It recently received careful consideration in Hartle v. Neighbauer, 142 Minn. 438 , , where the decisions of this court are collected, and the rule stated in Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

Co. 76 Minn. 461 , , and Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

Co. 76 Minn. 461 , ; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

“The old common-law rule that surface water is a common enemy, which each owner may get rid of as best he can, is in force in this state, except that it is modified by the rule that he must so use his own as not unnecessarily or unreasonably to injure his neighbor.” Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

Such a construction of the Erhard case would be a repudiation of the rule of reasonable use laid down in the case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

The doctrine of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

Co., 101 Minn. 183 , , the defendant company was charged with having “negligently * * * caused a continuous cut to be made through a certain sand ridge.” This court expressly applied the rule of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L.R.A.

On the motion to dismiss the question was whether, under the pleadings and the undisputed evidence, the rule of the common law, as modified by Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, justified appellant in maintaining a dike, or dam, at the point indicated, as a reasonable means of getting rid of the surface waters.

The question before the trial court was whether, under the doctrine of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, respondent was justified in constructing and maintaining the ditch.

The doctrine of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, has no application.

Whether the course adopted by appellant was reasonable under the doctrine of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, was a question of fact.

This, which has come to be known as the “rule in Sheehan v. Flynn” ( 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632), while originally much of a departure from general opinion, and as such even at the present time the subject of much criticism, has been adopted to a considerable extent by other states in spirit and letter.

*94 The principal reason assigned by the respondents and by the trial-"1 court for holding the relators not to be parties in substance to the original proceedings is that cases of this kind, and this case, are governed-by the doctrine laid down in Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, and Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , , and similar cases, and that under that doctrine the relators affirmatively appear to have suffered only damages for which-there could be no legal recov

In Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, after reviewing the earlier decisions and criticising some of them, it was held that the old common-law rule that surface water is a common enemy, which each owner may get rid of as best he can, is in force in this state, modified by the rule that the owner of land must so use his own

In Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , the rule is stated thus: The common-law rule is modified in this state by the rule that the party getting rid of surface water in the improvement of his own premises must so use his own as not unnecessarily or unreasonably to injure his neighbor.

232 ; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , ; Gilfillan v. Schmidt, 64 Minn. 29 , .

Co., 53 Minn. 259 , ; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , ; Burnett v. Great Northern Ry.

Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , .

ough its natural and usual channel from its right of way,-without injury to any other land owner, and that it neglected to do so, but that it unnecessarily or unreasonably drained the water upon the plaintiff’s land, to the plaintiff’s injury, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover.” This was a concise and accurate statement of the law as declared by this court in the case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , .

The case is more than covered by Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , .