DAM. A construction of wood, stone, or other materials, made across a stream of wa ter for the purpose of confining it ; a mole. See People v. Gaige, 23 Mich. 93 ; Colwell v. Water Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 245.
It is an instrument for turning the water of a stream to the use of a mill ; Burnham v. Kempton, 44 N. H. 78.
The word is sometimes used for the pond formed by the obstruction ; Colwell v. Wa ter Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 245 ; Natoma Wa ter & Mining Co. v. Hancock, 101 Cal. 42, 31 Pac. 112, 35 Pac. 334 ; Hutchinson v. Ry. Co., 37 Wis. 582; and it is held to be synony mous with dyke ; Corn. v. Tolman, 149 Mass. 229, 21 N. E. 377, 3 L. R. A. 747, 14 Am. St. Rep. 414. The water collected by a dam is . not properly termed a reservoir, as its object is not storage of water ; Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. Hancock, 101 Cal. 42, 31 Pac. 112, 35 Pac. 334.
The construction of dams in floatable streams to facilitate their use is in some states authorized by statute ; Brooks v. Riv er Imp. Co., 82 Me. 17, 19 Atl. 87, 7 L. R. A. 460, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459 ; Kretzsclamar v. Meehan, 74 Minn. 211, 77 N. W. 41; Field v. Log Driving Co., 67 Wis. 569, 31 N. W. 17; McLaughlin v. Mfg. Co., 103 N. C. 100, 9 S. E. 307; and incidental injuries to land of riparian proprietors thereby damaged are held to be consequential injuries incident to their proprietorship ; Brooks v. River Imp. Co., 82 Me. 17, 19 AtL 87, 7 L. R. A. 460, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459. See LOGS; RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
The owner of a stream not navigable may erect a darn across it, provided 'he do not thereby materially impair the rights of the proprietors above or below to the use of the water in its accustomed flow ; Gould, Wa ters 110, n.; Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mas. 401, Fed. Cas. No. 14,312; Vandenburgh v. Van Ber gen, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 212 ; Hooker v. Cum mings, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 90, 11 Am. Dec. 249 ; Boynton v. Rees, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 528 ; Wads worth v. Tillotson, 15 Conn. 366, 39 Am. Dec. 391; Hetrich v. Deachler, 6 Pa. 32 ; Shrunk v. Nay. Co., 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 71; Scott v. Willson, 3 N. H. 321; Daniels v. Say. Inst., 127 Mass. 534 ; Voter v. Hobbs, 69 Me. 19 ; Hanna v. Clarke, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 36 ; Decorah Woolen Mill Co. v. Greer, 49 Ia. 490; 28 Am. L. Reg. 147, n. He may even detain the water for the purposes of a mill, for a reasonable time, to the injury of an older mill,-the reasonableness of the detention in each particular case being a question for the jury ; Hartzall v. Sill, 12 Pa. 248 ; Thom
as v. Bra ckney, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 654; Snow v. Parsons, 28 Vt. 459, 67 Am. Dec. 723; Park er v. Hotchkiss, 25 Conn. 321; Phillips v. Sherman, 64 Me. 171; Drake v. Woolen Co., 99 Mass. 574 ; Hoxsie v. Hoxsie, 38 Mich. 77 ; Holden v. Lake Co., 53 N. H. 552. But he must not unreasonably detain the water ; Dilling v. Murray, 6 Ind. 324, 63 Am. Dec. 385; and the jury may find the constant use of the water by night and a detention of it by day to be an unreasonable use, though there be no design to injure others ; Barrett v. Parsons, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 367 ; see Bullard v. Mfg. Co., 77 N. Y. 525. Nor has such own er the right to raise his dam so high as to cause the stream to flow back upon the land of supra-riparian proprietors ; 1 B. & Ald. 248 ; Cowles v. Kidder, 24 N. H. 364, 57 Am. Dec. 287 ; Union Canal Co. v. Keiser, 19 Pa. 134 ; Pitman v. Poor, 38 Me. 237 ; Ellington v. Bennett, 59 Ga. 286 ; Drew v. Inhabitants of Westfield, 124 Mass. 461. And see BACK WATER. These rights may, of course, be modified by contract or prescription.
An owner maintaining a dam across a floatable stream is entitled to an injunction against the operation of a splash dam by an upper riparian owner in such manner as to interfere materially with the continuity of his power and to fill his pond and race with dirt ; Trullinger v. Howe, 53 Or. 219, 97 Pac. 548, 99 Pac. 880, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 545.
A mill proprietor may erect and maintain dams in a floatable stream, but he must keep open, for the use of those that wish, a con venient and considerable passageway for logs through or by his darn; Lancey v: Clif ford, 54 Me. 487, 92 Am. Dec.° 561 ; Connectir cut River Lumber Co. v. Olcott Fans Co., 65 N. H. 290, 21 Atl. 1090, 13 L. R. A: 826 ; Powell v. Lumber Co., 12 Idaho, 723, 88 Pac. 97 ; he may erect dividing piers to separate his logs from the common mass, but he must make reasonable provision for the passage of other logs without unreasonable hindrance ; A. C. Conn. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 74 Wis. 652, 43 N. W. 660.