Mial H. Peck, Respondent v. Martin Goodberlett, Appellant

Summary

The Court of Appeals reversed the General Term’s order and affirmed the referee’s judgment, holding that the defendant’s cultivation and the resulting natural flow of water onto the plaintiff’s land did not constitute a legal wrong, that no damage was shown, and that a preliminary injunction does not shift the plaintiff’s burden of proof. The decision rests on the principle that changes in water distribution are actionable only if they cause prejudice or injury to the lower tenement.