This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Francis Corp. (D) was the owner of a small tract of land in which a stream originated, and which was a drainage area for other land nearby. The stream emptied into a lake and was the natural drain-way for an 85-acre area, which included the D tract of land. Armstrong (P) and others owned land along the stream, further down towards the lake into which it emptied. D drained its land and erected a housing development. It also constructed a drainage system to serve the development, as well as another of its developments on another tract. The drainage of the original 85 acres was augmented by the drainage of D’s developments but also by waters percolating into the joints of the pipe where it lay below the level of the water table of the D tract. The pipe joints were designed to receive such percolating waters. The drainage system had the net effect of completely drying D's tract by diverting the stream into an underground pipe. By the time the stream left the pipe and flowed past P's land, its volume and force were greatly increased. There was a deposit of silt in the streambed, which raised it about eighteen inches. During a heavy rain, the stream would flood. There were no longer any fish, and the water was discolored and evil-smelling. As a result of the increased volume and force of the water, the bank of the stream located on P's property was eroded about ten feet and threatened to encroach on P's septic tank system. The lower court found that P was entitled to relief, and ordered that the rest of the stream be piped into the lake at D's effort and expense. D appeals.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.