City of Louisville v. Seibert

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: GUFFY, J.
• Citation: City of Louisville v. Seibert, 51 S.W. 310 (Ky. Ct. App. 1899)
• Decision Date: 31 May 1899
• Parties: CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. SEIBERT. [1]

51 S.W. 310

CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. SEIBERT. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 31, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county, common pleas division.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Margaret Seibert against the city of Louisville to recover damages for injury to property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Henry L. Stone and Alex. G. Barrett, for appellant.

Gardner & Moxley, for appellee.

GUFFY J.

The appellee instituted this action March 28, 1896, in the Jefferson circuit court, against the appellant, the city of Louisville. It is substantially alleged in the petition that on or about the 11th of April, 1895, appellant undertook to and did, by and through its agents, grade Twentieth street from the north line of Colgan to Maple street, and that said grade was completed on the 11th of April, 1895; that in said grade a deep excavation was made in said street, three or four feet below the natural surface at that point, and, when it rained, water drained into same, and could not escape therefrom, and, since the same was completed, water, to the depth of two or three feet, stood in said excavation from Colgan to Maple street, rendering said street wholly unfit for travel, and same has since been a cesspool of stagnant water, mud, and filth, and same entirely surrounds plaintiff's premises on Twentieth street, extending from the north side of Colgan street to and beyond the rear of her stable, and by reason of same she has been cut off from the use of Twentieth street, and her stable rendered inaccessible from Twentieth street; that at the time said excavation was made she resided in a flat above the storeroom on her premises, and the storeroom on the first floor was rented to a tenant, who conducted a successful business therein, but because the stable was rendered inaccessible from Twentieth street, and Twentieth street was in such condition that it could not be crossed with convenience or safety, she lost said tenant. The plaintiff further sets out specifically various items of damage and injury to the amount of $5,000. On October 16, 1896, a supplemental petition was filed, showing that the wrongs theretofore set out still continued, and set up additional damages, but did not increase the amount of her demand. The answer may be treated as a denial of the manner of grading, and the results therefrom, and a denial of the damages, as set up by the...