Bruntmeyer v. Squaw Creek Drainage Dist. No. 1.

Decision Date04 March 1912
PartiesBRUNTMEYER v. SQUAW CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Holt County; William C. Ellison, Judge.

Action by Charles J. Bruntmeyer against the Squaw Creek Drainage District No. 1. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Cause certified to the Supreme Court.

T. C. Dungan, for appellant. John W. Stokes, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant is a public corporation organized under the provisions of section 8251 et seq., Rev. Stat. 1899, as a drainage district. Plaintiff owns a farm just outside the district, and alleges that defendant so constructed its ditches as to collect water and throw it on his farm, to his damage. The cause is before us on the appeal of defendant from a judgment recovered by plaintiff in the circuit court. The principal defense is that the defendant, being a mere agency of the state, is not liable in damages to land adjoining the district caused by the construction and maintenance of a public drainage district. In Land Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 70 S. W. 721, 60 L. R. A. 190, 94 Am. St. Rep. 727, the Supreme Court decided that defendant was lawfully incorporated as a public corporation, and that the statutes under which it was incorporated are constitutional. After reviewing the authorities Marshall, J., concluded: "These considerations impel the conclusion that the drainage laws of this state are constitutional, and that the corporations organized thereunder to carry them into effect are public, governmental agencies, and in no sense private corporations, and that the benefits assessed are legal."

Under this ruling, we would be inclined to hold that defendant, being a mere agency of government and possessing none of the features or responsibilities of a private corporation, is not liable in damages for the injury in question, were it not that we could not so decide the case without disposing of the question of whether or not defendant, nevertheless, should be held liable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Max v. Barnard-Bolckow Drainage Dist.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Noviembre 1930
    ... ... this State. Bungenstock v. Nishnabotna Drainage ... District, 163 Mo. 198; Bruntmeyer v. Squaw Creek ... Drainage District, 144 S.W. 511, 194 S.W. 748; ... Schalk v. Inter-River ... ...
  • Max v. Drainage District
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Noviembre 1930
    ...conflict with the decisions of the courts of this State. Bungenstock v. Nishnabotna Drainage District, 163 Mo. 198; Bruntmeyer v. Squaw Creek Drainage District, 144 S.W. 511, 194 S.W. 748; Schalk v. Inter-River Drainage District, 226 S.W. 277; State ex rel. Gagnepain v. Daues, 15 S.W. (2d) ......
  • Missouri Valley Trust Co. v. St. Joseph, P. & K. C. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 4 Marzo 1912

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT