A stream of water which does not appear as a stream to casual observation, and which is finally lost in the ground, may be described as a "spring" in a reservation in a conveyance.6Appellant and appellee owned adjoining lands, and appellee had been using water that ran from a spring on appellant's land into a pool on his (appellee's) side of the line, from which he watered stock. Although partially subterranean, the course of the vein was Pronounced spō'. L. spoliare, to strip off spoil, despoil. 23 Bl. Com. 90. 31 Greenl. Ev. § 566; 2 Whart. Ev. §§ 1264-65; Medlin v. Platte County, 8 Mo. 239 (1843). • Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Sm. L. C. 642-45, cases; 2 Best, Ev. §§ 411-14; Broom, Max. 938; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 37. • Knapp v. Edwards, 57 Wis. 196 (1883), Lyon, J. • Peck v. Clark, 142 Mass. 440 (1886). A natural water-course may be created by the flow of surface water.' Mere surface drainage over one tract of land to another, through a ditch, does not constitute a watercourse.8 Water-mark. High and low watermarks, referred to as boundaries, mean the place to which the water ordinarily ascends or descends.9 Where the tide ebbs and flows, the line of high water is marked by the periodical flow of the tide, excluding the advance of waters above this mark by winds and storms, and by freshets or floods; and the line of low water-mark is the furthest receding point of ebb and flow. 10 13 Kent, 427-32; Angell, Water-Cour. § 5; 13 R. I. 614. 2 Luther v. Winnisimmet Co., 9 Cush. 174 (1851), Bigelow, J. • Jeffers v. Jeffers, 107 N. Y. 651 (1887). Angell, Water-Cour. § 4; 26 Cent. Law J. 26-31 (1888), cases. • Weis v. City of Madison, 75 Ind. 253 (1881), cases; 27 id. 556: 37 id. 228; 41 id. 320; 30 Conn. 180; 75 Ind. 253; 25 Kan. 210; 67 Me. 356; 12 N. J. E. 280; 16 Νον. 317; 10 Oreg. 76; 37 Wis. 226. Pyle v. Richards, 17 Neb. 182 (1885), cases. Kelly v. Dunning, 39 N. J. E. 4S3 (1885), cases. • Stanchfield v. Newton, 142 Mass. 110, 116 (1886). • Gerrish v. Proprietors, 26 Me. 395-96 (1847), cases, Shepley, J.; 113 Mass. 238; 60 Pa. 339. 10 Howard v. Ingersoll, 13 How. 423, 417 (1851), Nelson, J.; Houghton v. Chicago, &c. R. Co., 47 Iowa, 372 (1877). Where streets had been dedicated as terminating at the Hudson River, and, afterward, the bed in front below high water-mark was filled in by legislative authority and the land so made conveyed by the State to the defendants, who had also succeeded to the title of the original owner and dedicator, it was held that the title to the filled-in land was not affected by the dedication, that the streets terminated at the former high water-mark.¹ See BEACH. Water-power. The fall in a stream when in its natural state, as it passes through one's land, or along the boundary of it; the difference of level between the surface where the stream first touches his land, and the surface where it leaves it.2 See further AQUA; BOUNDARY; COMMERCE; DRAIN; MILL; NAVIGABLE; PROPERTY, Qualified; RIPARIAN; RIVER; SURFACE; TAKE, 8; VESSEL; WELL, 1.