The owner of a dam is bound to see to h trol it that injury may not result Fraler v. Sears Union Water Co., 12 0 Dam, harmless when erected, may not be A dam erected on a stream in a manner time of its erection to rights of ot reason of circumstances that coul subsequently and operating in c others, is not such an obstruction a recovery of damages against th thus occasioned. Proctor v. Jennings, 6 Nev., 83. Damages, actual, not necessary to an equ sion of water. Equitable relief will be granted for a wro no actual damage is shown. Eve and this principle is applied whe as that by its repetition or contin an adverse right. Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev., 217. Damages, when actual, necessary to justif See Injury; not always necessary to justi Damage by breaking of dam or ditch. See Negligence. vater over and above that of a mere 7 to the appropriation of water has proper to take into consideration the es which would affect any person who aking, such as the nature and climate weather, and the difficulties of pro S. M. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Nev., 534. exercised in prosecuting the work for s incident to the enterprise, and not the illness of the appropriator or his te the work, are to be considered in 4; Keeney v. Carillo, 2 N. M., 480. ne, a court of equity has no authority to be washed away for mining purch portion of the ditch as might be a metal pipe or flume which would The court should not license a trespass her thereof to exchange the same for of a private person, Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S., 453; H Ditch-owners are public carriers. Owners of ditches or canals, as such They are awarded certain priv and subject to reasonable cont Price v. Riverside L. & I. Co., 120; Wheeler v. Northern Col Ditch-owners as carriers, duties of. Ditch-owners, as such, are carriers, a rate (the county commissioner to the class of persons using incorporation. Golden Canal Co. v. Bright, 8 Col 10 Colo., 582. Ditch, right of way for. See Easement, Right of way. Ditch, water-rights co-extensive with. See Appropriator's right. Ditch, repairs of, liability for. See Estoppel. Ditch, value of, how proved. The ordinary way of proving the valu value of the water in its vici mand. Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal., 534. int for. version of water, that the plaintiff was priation to all the water flowing in the , entitles him to prove a diversion of the stream supplying water to that gful diversion of water at the instance Ithough no actual damages are averred ranted in such cases to prevent wrongt. d has an easement in a lower adjacent it with the water naturally flowing to nly to waters naturally so flowing, and can not be made more burdensome by on v. Longley, 19 Nev., 69. bordination to the dominant right of over them to obtain a supply of water , therefore, necessary that there should ablish an easement for right of way for Spring Valley W. Works v. The right of eminent domain is re Spring Valley W. Works v. San M The proprietor of an irrigating ditch and the right of way therefor public use, except upon paym Tripp v. Overocker, 7 Colo., 72. Estoppel. One having a right by prior appropria |