The degree of care which a party who con structs a dam across a stream is bound to use, is in proportion to the extent of injury which will be likely to result to third per sons provided it should prove insufficient. It is not enough that the dam is sufficient to resist ordinary floods ; for if the stream is occasionally subject to great freshets, these must likewise be guarded against; apd the measure of care required in such cases is that which a discreet person would use if the whole risk were his own ; Lapham v. Curtis, 5 Vt. 371, 26 Am. Dec. 310; Gray v. Harris, 107 Mass. 492, 9 Am. Rep. 61; Washb. Easem. *288 ; Bristol Hydraulic Co. v. er, 67 Ind. 236 ; State v. Water Co., 51 Conn. 137.
If a mill-dam be so built that it causes a watercourse to overflow the surrounding country, where it becomes stagnant and un wholesome, so that the health of the neigh borhood is sensibly impaired, such dam is public nuisance, for which its owner is lia ble to indictment ; Douglass v. State, 4 Wis. 387.
The owners of a mill dam cannot interfere with the right of the public to float logs on a stream; Lancey v. Clifford, 54 Me. 487, 92
Am. Dec. 561; but one injuring the dam of a riparian owner by running logs down a stream must Show that the stream was navi gable; 26 U. C. C. P. 539. As to the right of a riparian proprietor on a navigable stream to recover for injuries to his dam by the floating of logs down stream, see LOGS, which see also as to the conflicting rights of dam owners and log driving companies. Carlson v. Imp. Co., 73 Minn. 128, 75 N. W. 1044, 41 L. R. A. 372, 72 Am. St. Rep. 610; Coyne v. Boom Co., 72 Minn. 533, 75 N. W. 748, 41 L. R. A. 494, 71 Am. St. Rep. 508. So it is an indictable nuisance to erect a dam so as to overflow a highway ; State v. Phipps, 4 Ind. 515; Corn. v. Fisher, 6 Mete. (Ma§s.) 433; see Stone v. Peckham, 12 R. I. 27 ; or so as to obstruct the navigation of a public riv er; Newark Plank Road Co. v. Elmer, 9 N. J. Eq. 754; Tyrrell v. Lockhart, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 136; Williams v. Beardsley, 2 Ind. Mor gan v. King, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 277 ; Bacon v. Arthur, 4 Watts (Pa.) 437; Hoxsie v. Hoxsie, 38 Mich. 77; Lagrone v. Trice, 57 Miss. 227 ; Ellis v. Harris' Ex'r, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 684. See