It is evident that no one hard and fast rule could be applied to all cases, either in city or country, without producing injustice and impolitic results. The needs and conditions in city and country are different. They usually differ widely in different parts of the same city. These considerations have induced the Supreme Court of New Hampshire to adopt the flexible rule, that: "In determining this question all the circumstances of the case would, of course, be considered; and among them the nature and importance of the improvements sought to be made, the extent of the interference with the water, and the amount of injury done to other land owners as compared with the value of such improvements, and also whether such injury could or could not have been reasonably foreseen."1 That different considerations should be recognized in deciding on city and rural property has been intimated in several cases.2
Rood, John R. "Surface Water in Cities." Mich. L. Rev. 6 (1908): 448-67.