Definition
A conical tube fitted to an aperture or opening through which water flows, designed to increase the rate and volume of discharge. In legal contexts, an ajutage is relevant primarily in water law and riparian rights disputes, where the physical configuration of water delivery infrastructure—including whether an ajutage has been added or modified—bears on questions of water use, diversion rights, and the scope of an easement or grant.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A tube through which water is discharged; an efflux tube.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A tube through which water is discharged; an efflux tube; as, the ajutage of a fountain.
The common definition is purely descriptive and mechanical. The legal significance of the term is not in what the device is, but in what its presence or modification means for the legal rights of parties: adding or enlarging an ajutage can alter the quantity of water diverted, which in turn affects the rights of downstream users or adjoining landowners. The gap between common and legal usage is one of consequence, not definition.
Why It Matters in Research
AJUTAGE is a narrow, specialized term that appears almost exclusively in older water law and property disputes concerning mills, canals, and water works. Researchers encountering the term in nineteenth-century Pennsylvania or English case law should treat it as a signal that the underlying dispute concerns the physical means of water diversion and its effect on the quantity of water flowing to or past a property. The key legal question in such cases is typically not what the ajutage is, but whether its installation, alteration, or removal changed the volume of water diverted in a way that exceeded an existing grant or easement, or that damaged a neighboring riparian owner.
The only case reference supplied by both editions of Black's is Schuylkill Navigation Co. v. Moore, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 477, a Pennsylvania decision. Researchers should note that the first edition of Black's cited this source incompletely (omitting the case name and jurisdiction); the second edition corrected this. This is a useful reminder that early Black's citations should be verified against the second edition or primary sources before relying on them.
Because ajutage belongs to the vocabulary of hydraulic engineering as much as law, researchers working in historical water rights records, canal company archives, or mill privilege litigation will find the term used interchangeably with related engineering language. Do not expect consistent spelling: variant forms include "adjutage" and occasionally "ajutage" with the French pronunciation implied by historical usage.
This term does not appear in modern statutory codes or contemporary case law with any frequency. Its research value is almost entirely historical.
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary define the term identically in substance: a conical tube applied to a water aperture to increase flow. The second edition adds the full case citation (Schuylkill Navigation Co. v. Moore), which the first edition omits. Neither edition elaborates on the legal consequences of an ajutage's presence or modification, leaving the definitional entry as essentially a technical gloss rather than a legal analysis.
Webster's 1913 and Wiktionary align closely with Black's physical description, confirming that the term carried the same mechanical meaning in both common and legal usage. No historical source meaningfully diverges from this core definition. The gap in the historical legal dictionaries is not definitional disagreement but analytical thinness: none of the sources explains why the term matters to a legal dispute, only what the object is.
Jurisdictional Note
The primary legal authority cited in both editions of Black's is a Pennsylvania state court decision, suggesting the term's legal usage was most developed in jurisdictions with active canal and water works litigation in the nineteenth century. English common law sources also use the term in mill and water rights contexts. Modern jurisdictions are unlikely to use the term in statutory or regulatory frameworks.