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

Mashburn (P1) conducts a commercial boating and fishing enterprise. P rents cabins, fishing gear and boats for lake fishing and other recreational activities. Horseshoe Lake is 3 miles long and 300 feet wide. Brooks (D) are lessees of Johnson who owns a large tract of land adjacent to the lake which includes 3/4ths of the lakebed. D grow rice on the land and has used the lake waters to irrigate. D’s usage was the same year after year. The balance of the lake bed is owned by four different groups of people; Ed Harris et al. (Ps). In March 1954, P1 leased from Ps a small campsite and installed his business at a cost of $8,000. Things were going great until July when the fish quit biting, and his income was reduced to practically nothing. Ps sued D. Ds were pumping water from the lake until this suit was filed and then resumed but quit again when it was discovered that fish were being endangered. The prior years were unusually dry, and the water levels of all lakes were unusually low, and Horseshoe was no exception. Water had receded from P1’s bank such that it was impossible for him to rent boats. There was strong evidence that the lake was below its normal levels on July 10th. Ps sought an injunction, and the Chancellor refused to issue it. This appeal resulted.

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.