ed successively in the circuit
courts of Stark and Bureau counties. The juries each time decided for
Mr. Pilgrim, but the Appellate court each time reversed the decision;
and finally worried Mr. Pilgrim into yielding to a judgment of one cent
damages. The material part of that decision is as follows:

MELLOR VS. PILGRIM.--"The appellant had the right to own and possess his
land free from the increased burden arising from receiving the surface
water from the land of appellee through artificial channels made by
appellee, for the purpose of carrying the surface water therefrom more
rapidly than the same would naturally flow; and the appellant having
such right for any invasion thereof the law gives him an action. * * *
If, as we have seen, the appellee by making the drain in question
collected the surface water upon his own land and discharged the same
upon the lands of the appellant in increased quantity and in a different
manner than the same would naturally run, the act was unlawful because
of its consequences, and the subjecting of appellant's lands to such
increased and different burden than would otherwise attach to it, was an
invasion of appellant's rights from which the law implies damages, and
in such case proof of the wrongful act entitles the plaintiff to recover
nominal damages at least."

Under this decision it is not easy to see how a man can lawfully cut a
rod of ditch or lay tile on his own land, unless he can contrive some
way to stop the flow of water.

1. The lower man may recover without proving that he is damaged because
to drain is "wrongful."

2. Such drainage being a continuing trespass, subjects the perpetrator
to never ending law suits and foredoomed defeats.

3. The lower man may forbid you to drain, or exact such tribute as he
may dictate.

4. As the first man below must be consulted, why not the second, and how
far this side of the Gulf is the limit of this trespass?

Here, as I have elsewhere, I challenge this as bad law. It reverses the
order of nature, as well as custom, and can not be endured as the public
policy of Illinois. Let us contemplate the exact opposite principle. "A
land owner may drain his land for agricultural purposes by tile or open
ditch, in the line of natural drainage, into any natural outlet on his
own land or into any drainage depression leading to some natural
outlet."

This proposition is generally regarded as self evident, but out of
respect to the court, le