
    Sackrider and another against Beers and another.
    NEWYORK,
    May, 1813.
    Though the soil on a pub-" dam, and use aot toInjure {¡íto^'n^e enjoyment of ter, according course”ai!dlf the water as to injure the amount of the injury sustained.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. B. & B. sued S. <§• S. before the justice. The declaration was for diverting the water-course of the plaintiffs, by which the plaintiffs were disturbed in the enjoyment of their grist-mill. The defendants, S. <§• B., pleaded not guilty. It was proved that the defendants erected their saw-mill and dam, in 1806, across the Delaware river, about fifty, rods above the mill-dam of the plaintiffs, which had been built and used for above 18 years before,. The defendants took the water out of the river at their dam into a race-way on the northwesterly side of the river, and which emptied again into the river, about 40 rods below the dam of the plaintiffs. The defendants owned the land on the westerly side of the river, and the plaintiffs’ i , t mill is on the southeasterly side; and they also take the water through a race-way which is returned again into the river below the mouth of the race-way of the defendants. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, on which the justice gave judgment,
    
      Foot, for the plaintiffs in error.
    
      D. Ruggles, contra.
   Per Curiam.

There is no just objection to the recovery of the plaintiffs below, The defendants were answerable in damages for the injury to the p1aintiffs~ in the enjoyment of their mill, by diverting the natural course of the water. The defendants had~ no doubt, a right to build a mill on their land; but they must so construct the dam, and so use the water, as no~ to injure their neighbours below, in the enjoyment of the same water according to its natural course. (3 Caines’ Rep. 320.) The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed-  