Chidsey v. City of Pascagoula

• Decision Date: 28 October 1912
• Docket Number: 15,894
• Citation: 59 So. 879,102 Miss. 709
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: CHARLES E. CHIDSEY v. CITY OF PASCAGOULA

59 So. 879

102 Miss. 709

CHARLES E. CHIDSEY v. CITY OF PASCAGOULA

No. 15,894

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 28, 1912

APPEAL from the circuit court of Jackson county, HON. GEO. S. DODDS Special Judge.

Suit by Charles E. Chidsey against city of Pascagoula. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Appellant sued the city of Pascagoula for damages for "obstructing the natural and only drainage of surface water accumulating on his premises, . . . and which was toward and into Delmas avenue, on which it fronts, and such drainage was sufficient to and did keep plaintiff's premises in reasonably dry and comfortable condition until the defendant obstructed same by the negligent construction and maintenance of the sidewalk on, across, and over the front of said premises." The declaration also alleged that it was the duty of the city to construct its sidewalk according to plans and specifications (which seems to have been done), and that the city had been negligent in its construction of the sidewalk, which caused the damage to appellant's property.

The proof showed that appellant had, prior to the construction of this sidewalk, dug a drain out into the street to carry off some of the surface water, and that the natural drainage of the property was toward the rear, but that such drainage had been obstructed. The lot was flat and low, and below the street grade. The city placed a drain under the sidewalk; but appellant claims that it did not keep it cleaned out, so as to drain his land. The defense of the city was that they had conformed to the plans and specifications in the construction of the sidewalk, and that they had been guilty of no negligence or carelessness, and that they had interfered in no way with the natural drainage of the property, and were under no obligation to drain appellant's land.

The case was submitted to a jury, who viewed the premises and returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of two dollars and fifty cents, from which he appeals. The case was affirmed without written opinion, and afterwards, a suggestion of error was filed.

Suggestion of error overruled.

Denny &amp Denny, for appellant.

H. B Everitt, for appellee.

OPINION

COOK, J.

The cause of action in the present case is not predicated upon section 17 of the Constitution; it being charged by the declaration that the injury to plaintiff's property was caused by the negligent construction of the...