Levasseur v. City of Berlin

• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PARSONS, C. J.
• Citation: Levasseur v. City of Berlin, 71 A. 628, 75 N.H. 146 (N.H. 1908)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1908
• Parties: LEVASSEUR v. CITY OF BERLIN.

71 A. 628

75 N.H. 146

LEVASSEUR

v. CITY OF BERLIN.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos.

Dec. 1, 1908.

Transferred from Superior Court, Coos County; Plummer, Judge.

Action by Peter Levasseur against the City of Berlin. Facts agreed, and case transferred from the superior court. Case discharged.

In March, 1906, the plaintiff purchased a house and lot on Park Street in Berlin. At that time a stream of water flowed across the rear of the lot in a covered stone culvert, which connected with a tile drain on the southerly side of the premises. About ten years before, the city in building a street diverted the stream so as to cross this lot. About three years later the culvert was built by the city, and afterward it was continued by the tile drain. At the upper end of the culvert an iron grate was placed to screen the water passing through. The city did not maintain the water course as a sewer and had no knowledge that it was so used. The plaintiff enlarged and deepened the cellar under his house, and laid a drain from it connecting with the culvert in such a manner that the water of the stream might flow back. The drain was used to carry the sewage of the house until the summer of 1907, when the city constructed a sanitary sewer on Park street, and the plaintiff connected his premises therewith for sewerage purposes, leaving the drain to carry off water which accumulated in the cellar. During freshets in March, 1907, and in February, 1908, the water backed through the plaintiffs drain into his cellar, causing the damage sued for. In March, 1908, the city uncovered the culvert at the lower end, and it was found that the upper end of the tile pipe was much obstructed by an accumulation of tin cans, bottles, and other debris. The tile pipe and culvert are large enough to carry all the water of the stream, but the pipe is smaller than the culvert, and the construction at this point is such that articles like those found might naturally accumulate there. Upon the foregoing facts a verdict was given to the plaintiff.

Herbert I. Goss, for plaintiff.

Matthew J. Ryan, for defendant.

PARSONS, C. J. The case does not disclose any question of law reserved in the superior court. So far as appears, all questions there raised were settled without exception. Strictly therefore there is nothing before this court upon the record. The parties, however, have argued the validity of the verdict upon the agreed facts, and it is probable that the defendants' exception to...