Brown v. City of Sigourney
| Decision Date | 19 February 1914 |
| Citation | 145 N.W. 478,164 Iowa 184 |
| Parties | C. M. BROWN, Appellee, v. CITY OF SIGOURNEY, IOWA, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Keokuk District Court.--HON. K. E. WILLCOCKSON, Judge.
APPEAL by defendant from judgment granting mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to remove obstructions to the flow of surface water from plaintiff's lot.
Affirmed.
W. C Gambell, for appellant.
F. L Goeldner, for appellee.
Plaintiff is the owner of lot 1 in block 1 of Hogan's addition to Sigourney, which is a city of the second class. His lot is bounded on the north by south street, on the east by Crocker street, and on the south by Valley street. The natural slope of his lot is to the northeast, that corner of the lot being many feet lower than the south part. It appears in the evidence that up to the time complained of by plaintiff there had been maintained a culvert across South street which afforded drainage and outlet for the water which flowed upon plaintiff's lot from a tract to the south, and from Valley street and Crocker street. It also appears that in the spring of 1910 and subsequently the city of Sigourney, by its street commissioners and laborers, raised the surface of South street, removed the old culvert, and at or near where it had been placed a tile culvert, which, however, was higher than the one which was replaced, and which elevation, together with the added height to the street, prevented the flow of surface water from the north side of plaintiff's lot, thus causing it to accumulate, and prevented its cultivation and use.
The foregoing statement of the facts is the substance of plaintiff's complaint, upon which he bases his right to recover damages and a claim for a mandatory injunction directing the city of Sigourney to remove from its street the obstruction to the free flow of water from plaintiff's premises. The cause was tried to the court. No damages were allowed, but mandatory injunction was granted as prayed. From such the defendant appeals.
The facts as shown by the record sustain the conclusions reached in the first division of this opinion. From the argument of appellant, we find that its reliance is upon the proposition that the city is not compelled to afford drainage for the plaintiff's lot while the same is below grade, and does not seriously dispute the findings of fact upon which the trial court must have based its judgment and order.
The statement of appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial