surface then. * The Reese Creek drain has been cleaned out, and when it was cleaned the first time, I had the entire control of it; but the next time it was cleaned under the county drain commissioner. I mean that it has been cleaned out twice since it was first constructed as a drain. The first time, when I cleaned it out, I simply took out the accumulated grass, flood wood, and the little obstructions occasioned by the banks caving in and such like. I am not sure whether I cleaned it out for the full length of the drain. The second time, only the upper part of the drain was cleaned out; that is, across section 18. I thought, when I first came to that country, that the whole country was a swamp; but I find there is quite a difference. I have changed my mind, and in looking at the land from the standpoint of my knowledge now of that country I say that there is no place within that Squaw Creek watershed in the township of Denmark that was at any time what would be called a swamp. There were no * * * lands that were not hard bottom lands. There were no places where there were quicksand swamps that I know of. * * * "Q. Was the Pesick drain which you testified to as being a watercourse, cleaned out? "A. Yes; it gave a better drainage to the surface of the land. It was all constructed before, but we deepened and improved it. * 66 * Q. Isn't it a fact that the Pesick drain and the Schemm drain simply ran from the Reese drain in an easterly direction, and they were swales or dips of low land, and those ditches were made simply to drain those swales, and not to empty any swamps or to receive any water from any springs? "A. That is right. * "Q. I call your attention to all of the drains you have mentioned this morning, namely, Reese drain, Pesick drain, Schemm drain, Weiss drain, Ayers drain, and the Van Patten drain. From your testimony, you seem to be quite familiar with all of them, and are able to give the width and flow of the water near the mouth of the Reese drain. Now, at any time during wet seasons did any of those ditches overflow their banks at any place? "A. I do not know. I never was there in extreme high water. We never worked on the ditches in extreme high water. "Q. Then, when you testified as to the flow of the water and the speed of the current, it was done when you saw it in a dry time, was it? "A. I did not testify as to the speed of the water or anything of the kind, and I do not know whether any of those streams in time of high water overflow their banks. * * 'Q. From your knowledge of that particular vicinity, where did the water flow to from that point, before Reese drain was constructed in Reese creek? "A. It flowed the same route of the Reese ditch, except the Reese ditch straightened some points of it, and it may have shortened the route; but it is practically the same route." Defendants' witness Hannan testified concerning Squaw Creek drain: "I think the drain was cleaned out about three years ago, and since it was cleaned out the water doesn't remain there so long, and I guess there doesn't so much stay in there." Defendants' witness Abner Johnson testified: "I suppose the statements contained in the petition for cleaning it out were true. At least, the reasons I gave for cleaning it out was to drain the water off. When it was first established, it did not take all the water off from section 28, and I think since it was cleaned out it furnishes drainage for my 25 acres. That was along the south side of my land. It extended for the distance of 40 rods from the southeast corner of my land, and it runs far enough to take in about 25 acres. It will take all the water off that 25 acres when I get drains cut out to the south section line, and I think the drain will take all the water that will flow on the south half of section 28. * * * "Q. Then all of the land now in section 28, since this ditch has been cleaned out in 1900, is practically dry land and drains to the Squaw creek? "A. I did not say so, I said the south half of section 28, excepting the part I have mentioned, drains into Squaw creek, and all of it is practically dry land now. In dry weather it is dry land, and the same is true of section 33 of Gilford. There was not good drainage before the ditch was cleaned out, but now it practically takes all of the water that comes on those sections." Defendants' witness William Johnson testified: "There was considerable water in times of heavy rains and from melting of snows and the like of that, in sections 28 and 33, before Squaw creek was constructed, and it could not get away as well as since. Q. Isn't it a fact that, before the ditch was dug, a good deal of the water had to soak away or evaporate? A. It made its way downstream as fast as it naturally could, for the stuff which laid in the creek or low places. kept it from going. Since it has been cleaned out, the water runs away more rapidly than it did before. The water used to lay there for some time, until it could run away. It makes its way off now faster than it did, and since the ditch was cleaned out in 1899, there is but very little water stays in there; that is, it soon gets off the land. 66 Q. Before they dug the ditch in 1885, and between that time and when they cleaned it out in 1900, after heavy rains or melting snow and ice, or in the springtime, how long would it take the water to get off of sections 28 and 33? "A. Well, I suppose that would be owing to how long it rained; but, as a general thing, it takes four or five days to take the water all off the surface. On account of the culvert in there, and the other one, it cannot carry the water off of 28 and 33 as fast as it accumulates. The culvert between 28 and 33 is about 8 feet wide and three feet deep; and in time of heavy rains and high water, I suppose it runs full. Squaw Creek drain along the west side of the north west quarter of 33 is about nine or ten feet wide on the top, and perhaps five feet on the bottom. The depth varies. It may have an average depth of five feet. At the time of heavy rain and high water, the capacity of the drain is taxed to its full extent. The water breaks through between sections 32 and 33 in the old watercourse. "Q. Then you would say that, since the drain has been built and cleaned out, more water goes down in a short space of time than did before, because it takes it quicker. "A. The surface water." We have quoted from the testimony somewhat fully for the reason that it was strenuously insisted upon the argument by the able counsel for defendants that complainant had suffered no damage because of the various improve ་ ments of the drains referred to, but that, on the contrary, such improvements had been a benefit, by diminishing the quantity of water which would flow down the natural waterways. Several witnesses support the counsel's contention by ingenious and plausible reasoning; but the facts as disclosed by the whole record do not support the claim. It is obvious that the deepening and straightening of old drains and the construction of new ones must have had some purpose, and it seems equally obvious that that purpose was to drain territory which theretofore was not properly drained. This result was actually produced, as disclosed by witnesses for defendants, and lands were, by reason of the improvements, drained and made cultivable, which previously had been wet and not fit for tillage. The bridges, highways, and culverts of complainant township were, during the period of the improvements, subjected to floods of water flowing with greater force and in greater quantity than immediately prior to those improvements. The improvements furnish an adequate cause for the injuries to complainant's roads and bridges, and the only adequate cause disclosed by the record. That old waterways were deepened and straightened and new ones constructed in part is undisputed, and it is clear from the testimony and in the light of common sense that such waterways, as improved, carried the waters coming to them faster and in greater quantities in a given time than they had theretofore. The defendants had a lawful right to clean out the old waterways or drains to the depth to which they were originally excavated. They did not have a lawful right to deepen them, and thereby cast larger quantities of water in shorter periods upon complainant's highways, bridges, and culverts, to its damage. Smith v. Township of Eaton, 138 Mich. 511; Cranson v. Snyder, 137 Mich. 340; Finkbinder v. Ernst, 126 Mich. 565; O'Connor v. Hogan, 140 Mich. 613; Township of Swan Creek v. Brown, 130 Mich. 382; Breen v. Hyde, 130 Mich. 1; Township of Merritt v. Harp, 131 Mich. 174; Bruggink v. Thomas, 125 Mich. 9. The waterways were none the less artificial because the drain commissioners made use in large part of depressions and washed-out channels, where the storm and surface water flowed in a state of nature. The natural waterways would not afford the desired drainage, and they were therefore changed into artificial waterways which would. We think the suit was properly instituted in the circuit court for the county of Bay in chancery, and under our view of the testimony the complainant is entitled to relief. Davis v. Township of Frankenlust, 118 Mich. 494; Township of Merritt v. Harp, supra. The Squaw Creek drain, the Ayers, Pesick, Schemm, Weiss, and Ryan drains, were cleaned out or constructed, in whole or in part, under the supervision of the defendant Harp, and as to such drains, he is liable, under our decisions, to an action at law for any damage which may have resulted from his unlawful acts, and is subject to the control of a court of equity. Bruggink v. Thomas, 125 Mich. 9. The Reese drain was cleaned out by Mr. Harp's predecessor, and, so far as the record discloses, he has done nothing to maintain this drain, unless it be to improve the drains connecting with it; and, upon restoring the branch drains to their previous condition, we think he will have fully discharged his obligations to complainant in this suit. The same holding will apply to the Van Patten drain, with reference to which Mr. Harp has taken no action. The Squaw Creek improvement drain, as we understand from the record, is the subject of a prior suit, which is still pending. We do not find sufficient evidence in the record of any unlawful acts on the part of the other defendants, the highway commissioners, which resulted in injury to complainant, to justify a decree against them, and as to them the bill must be dismissed. The complainant township is not entitled to recover in this suit for any damages to its highways, bridges, or culverts. Such damages are not recoverable by the township, either at law or in equity. Township of Denver v. Booming Co., 51 Mich. 472; Township |