Jacobs v. Frangos, 30309
| Decision Date | 17 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 30309,30309 |
| Citation | 329 S.W.2d 262 |
| Parties | Arthur W. JACOBS and Dorothy Jacobs, His Wife, Plaintiffs (Respondents), v. George FRANGOS and Helen Frangos, His Wife, Defendants (Appellants). |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Theodore P. Hukriede, Washington, for appellants.
G. C. Beckham, Steelville, Jenny & Cole, Union, for respondents.
DOERNER, Commissioner.
Defendants appeal from a judgment for $1,100 rendered against them by the Circuit Court of Franklin County. The gist of plaintiffs' complaint was that the defendants had excavated a ditch in the bed of a creek, whereby the natural course of the stream was changed, resulting in the erosion and flooding of plaintiffs' land.
The evidence showed that plaintiffs owned a tract of land in Crawford County, and that the defendants' land adjoins theirs to the South. A stream named Crooked Creek ran in a Northwestwardly direction through defendants' property and onto the land belonging to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs' evidence, prior to the work complained about the creek, after crossing the boundary and flowing on their land in a Northwestwardly direction, made a bend to the left, so that it ran in a Westwardly direction. State Highway 19 crossed the Northeastern part of the defendants' property and the Southeastern portion of the plaintiffs' farm, running in a Southwest-Northeast direction. Where it crossed Crooked Creek, on the defendants' farm, a bridge had been construed about 1927 or 1928. Defendants admitted that in the month of November, 1956, they had caused a bulldozer to do certain work in the bed of Crooked Creek both above and below the bridge, but the nature and amount of the work and the result so far as a change in the flow of the water was concerned, were sharply disputed questions of fact.
Plaintiffs' evidence was that Crooked Creek was a living stream which always had water in it; that prior to the time the work was done the water flowed through a channel on the South side of the bed of the creek; that a gravel bar was on the North side of the creek bed; and that their bank, on the North side of the creek, was well embedded with willows. Plaintiffs' evidence further showed that the defendants had bulldozed a channel 10 feet wide, varying in depth from a foot to 3 feet or more, from the highway bridge downstream to the boundary line, a distance of about 400 or 500 feet; that the new channel, into which the water was diverted, was cut through a group of willows opposite the bridge; and that the channel was to the North of the natural channel, and made a straight chute headed towards their property. The result, according to plaintiffs' evidence, was that when the floods came in the late winter and spring of 1957, the water came down the new channel, washed out the protective screen of willows, and eroded the North bank of the creek on plaintiffs' land, so that it receded varying distances, about 40 feet near an old iron mine and about 300 feet closer to their cultivable land. Plaintiffs also complained that the creek bed on the North side had been raised by the washing down of gravel, so that plaintiffs' land instead of being about 7 feet above the mean level of the creek, is now only about 3 feet above, and in some places only 2 feet above it; and that the water is seeping into the iron pit at the rate of 2,000...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelso v. C. B. K. Agronomics, Inc., KCD26168
...778 (1906); Keener v. Sharp, 341 Mo. 1192, 111 S.W.2d 118 (1937); Corrington v. Kalicak, 319 S.W.2d 888 (Mo.App.1959); Jacobs v. Frangos, 329 S.W.2d 262 (Mo.App.1959); Happy v. Kenton, 362 Mo. 1156, 247 S.W.2d 698 (1952); Beauchamp v. Taylor, 132 Mo.App. 92, 111 S.W. 609 (1908); Schalk v. I......
-
Cragin v. Lobbey
...(Mo.App.1970); Hoevelman v. Reorganized Sch. D. R2 of Crawford County, 452 S.W.2d 298, 300(2) (Mo.App.1970); Jacobs v. Frangos, 329 S.W.2d 262, 264(1) (Mo.App.1959). Four verdict-directing instructions were given for plaintiffs. No. 2 for plaintiff wife and No. 6 for plaintiff husband calle......
-
Armstrong v. Westroads Development Co.
...for the waters causing the damage in the instant case never reached the watercourse. Moreover, Happy v. Kenton, supra, and Jacobs v. Frangos, Mo.App., 329 S.W.2d 262, involves parties who were riparian owners. Zook v. Louisiana, Mo.App., 12 S.W.2d 518, involves the collection of surface wat......
-
Marlo Coil Corp. v. Grand Park Corp.
...court the defendant introduced evidence. Defendant thereby waived its right to complain of the trial court's action. Jacobs v. Frangos, Mo.App., 329 S.W.2d 262(1); and Lindsay v. McLaughlin, Mo.App., 311 S.W.2d 148(1). For still another reason the question of denying the defendant's motion ......