Dipple v. Douglas
| Decision Date | 13 June 1860 |
| Citation | 14 Ind. 441 |
| Parties | Dipple v. Douglas |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Vanderburg Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.
A. L Robinson, for appellant.
J. G Jones and J. E. Blythe, for appellee.
This suit was commenced by Douglas against Dipple, before a justice of the peace, to recover 50 dollars.
The complaint of Douglas was this: He owned two adjoining pieces of property in the city of Evansville, which were occupied severally by tenants, viz., John Dipple and Eugene Kappler. Dipple dug a hole upon the piece of property--a lot--occupied by him, which filled with water and overflowed into the cellar of Kappler, the other tenant of Douglas. Douglas filled up the hole, at a cost of 11 dollars, and paid Kappler 39 dollars for his injuries from the overflow, making 50 dollars, which he alleges he paid for the wrongful act of Dipple, and which sum he seeks to recover back by means of this suit.
Upon the trial on appeal in the Circuit Court, it appeared that the premises occupied by Dipple were leased by Douglas to one William M. Walker, for a period of ten years, ending August 1, 1859, at a certain ground rent, Walker paying also the taxes, and having the right to remove any buildings he might erect on the premises, at any time within two months from the first day of August, 1859, but not afterwards. If they were not removed by the expiration of said two months, they became the property of Douglas. Nothing was said in the lease about rent for the two month's extension of time; nor was there, as to excavating or filling up, or otherwise, cellars.
Walker assigned this lease to Dipple, who occupied as his assignee. Such being the case, it might well be looked into to see if this action lies against him by the original lessor. See 4 Kent, p. 96; 1 Chit. Pl., pp 17, 116. et seq; Taylor's Land. and Ten., p. 294. But the point has not been made, and we shall not examine it.
It appears that Dipple removed the buildings erected on the leased ground within the two months allowed, and Douglas took possession. Nothing appears to have been said about the cellar at that time. It does not appear but that Douglas might have thought it would be useful for a subsequent tenant for years, or for the accommodation of a building intended to be erected by himself.
It further appears that in November, 1859, being more than a month after Douglas had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Stuckwish
- St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Stuckwish Adm'x.
-
State v. Ramsey
...the authority of which the point in the case of the State v. Jones, supra, was decided had, in effect, been overruled in 10 Ind. 309, 359; 14 Ind. 441 and 22 Ind. 1. It appears that one Lance, who saw the encounter between defendant and deceased, was introduced as a witness and stated among......
- State v. Huebner, 28831