Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Bd. of Com'rs, Lawrenceburg Flood Control Dist., No. 27732.

• Docket Nº: No. 27732.
• Citation: 45 N.E.2d 491, 220 Ind. 604
• Case Date: January 05, 1943
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

220 Ind. 604
45 N.E.2d 491

JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, Inc.,
v.
BOARD OF COM'RS, LAWRENCEBURG FLOOD CONTROL DIST.

No. 27732.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 5, 1943.

Proceeding between Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., and the Board of Commissioners, Lawrenceburg Flood Control District. From an adverse judgment, the former appeals. On motion to dismiss appeal.

Motion denied and judgment affirmed.

[45 N.E.2d 491]

Appeal from Dearborn Circuit Court; G. Edwin Johnston, special judge.
H. E. Fruechtenicht, of Lawrenceburg, and T. M. Galphin, Jr., of Louisville, Ky., for appellant.

Charles A. Lowe, Wm. M. Turner, and Loren L. Edwards, all of Lawrenceburg, for appellee.

RICHMAN, Chief Justice.

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the proceeding below was under the Flood Control Act of 1939 which in § 3, being § 48-4931, Burns' 1933 (Supp.), § 11759-2, Baldwin's Supp.1939, declares: ‘There shall be no appeal from such judgment, and after the entry of such decree the establishment of said district shall not be questioned in any action or proceeding, except as herein otherwise expressly provided.’

The General Assembly may not thus take from this court its constitutional appellate jurisdiction. Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co., 1940, 217 Ind. 93, 26 N.E.2d 399;State v. Hilgemann, 1941, 218 Ind. 572, 34 N.E.2d 129.

The only substantial question for consideration is whether or not appellant's Warehouse ‘E’ ‘will be included within or protected by the proposed flood control works.’ See § 48-4932, Burns' 1933 (Supp.), § 11759-3, Baldwin's Supp.1939. Appellant says that on the undisputed evidence this was a question of law erroneously decided. Appellee says it was a question of fact sustained by sufficient evidence.

The evidence discloses that the warehouse is rectangular in shape with north and south walls about twice as long as the east and west walls. The entrance doors are in the east wall. Appellee's proposed levee approaches the warehouse from the south and ties into the south wall some distance west of the southeast corner of the building. On the north side of the building the levee is tied into the north wall and then continues northward around other of appellant's warehouses. From the place in the south wall where the levee is attached, westward to the southwest corner, thence northward to the northwest corner and thence eastward to the place where

[45 N.E.2d 492]

the levee is attached to the north wall the said walls are so...