City Of Macon v. Macon Paper Co, (No. 16325.)

• Decision Date: 25 February 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 16325.)
• Parties: CITY OF MACON. v. MACON PAPER CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

35 Ga.App. 120

132 S.E. 136

CITY OF MACON.

v.MACON PAPER CO.

(No. 16325.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Feb. 25, 1926.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County, Malcolm D. Jones, Judge.

Suit by the Macon Paper Company against the City of Macon. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Grady Gillon and H. D. Russell, both of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

Martin, Martin & Baldwin, of Macon, E. C. Powers, of Atlanta, and A. Melrose La-mar, of West Palm Beach, Fla., for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

STEPHENS, J. 1. Although a system for the drainage of surface water from the streets of a city may be sufficient for that purpose at the time of its installation, yet where, by reason of changed conditions, due to the erection of buildings which shed water into the streets, and to the construction of pavements in the streets, both of which prevent the natural seepage of surface water into the ground and thereby concentrate and augment the volume of water flowing through the streets, the drainage system becomes inadequate to carry off water accumulating in the streets from an ordinary rainfall, by reason of which condition the water precipitated into the streets during a rainfall is not drained with sufficient rapidity to prevent its overflowing upon adjoining premises, and where the situation is known to the city, its maintenance thereafter by the city constitutes a nuisance, and the city may be liable for resulting damage therefrom to adjacent property owners. Langley v. Augusta, 118 Ga. 590 (8), 45 S. E. 486, 98 Am. St. Rep. 133; Mayor of Waycross v. Houk, 113 Ga. 963 (2), 39 S. E. 577; 4 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, § 1745; City of Macon v. Roy (Ga. App.) 130 S. E. 700.

2. This being a suit by a property owner against the city, in which the foregoing facts appeared from the petition, a cause of action was set out, and the court did not err in overruling the defendant's demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

JENKINS, P. J., and BELL, J., concur.