
    David Falconer, complainant-appellant, v. Ricker Realty Company et al., defendants-respondents.
    [Submitted October 26th, 1934.
    Decided January 10th, 1935.]
    
      
      Mr. Nathan Rabinowitz and Mr. Isadore Rabinowitz, for the complainant-appellant.
    
      Mr. John O. Benson, for the defendants-respondents.
   Pee Cueiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery, advised by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, dismissing the bill of complaint which sought an injunction to prevent the defendants-respondents from obstructing the natural flow of the waters of a stream at a point above lands of complainant-appellant. The vice-chancellor held that the proofs adduced by the appellant failed to sustain the cause of action set out in the hill of complaint.

A careful consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the court below was correct in the finding on the facts, and the decree should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Dohges, Hehee, Peeskie, Van Buskiek, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — -None.  