Levy v. Salt Lake City
Decision Date | 01 October 1887 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | SAMUEL LEVY, RESPONDENT, v. SALT LAKE CITY, APPELLANT. LEVY v. SALT LAKE CITY, 3 Utah 63 |
APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the third district and from an order refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts.
Affirmed.
Messrs Sheeks & Rawlins, for appellant.
Messrs Sutherland & McBride, and Mr. Arthur Brown, for respondents.
This cause is brought against the city for negligently permitting water to flow into plaintiff's cellar and injuring his stock of goods. The case has once been before this court on the appeal of the present respondent, (3 Utah 63, 1 P. 160), and in the opinion of the court delivered on the hearing of that appeal, and above referred to, the claims of the parties as stated in their pleadings are particularly set forth. The cause was again brought to trial in the third district court, and the testimony for the plaintiff tended to show the same state of facts set forth in the opinion of Mr. Justice Twiss on the hearing of the former appeal, above referred to, and to which we refer without repeating it. Mr. C. H. Wilcken, who was city water-master at the time the injury occurred, and who was sworn on the part of the plaintiff on the former trial, being absent from the territory, the plaintiff called Alma H. Winn, the court stenographer, to make proof of his former testimony. This was objected to on the ground that the defendant was not allowed to properly cross-examine the witness. The objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The witness, after giving the testimony above referred to, stated also that as water-master he knew that the water assigned to block 59 ran through the ditch from the street, and that on the night in question he turned the water on the block and served notice upon the proprietors adjoining the ditch of their allotment of water, and did not turn it off, but left it running after the time when all the allotments of owners bordering thereon had expired. On cross-examination by the defendant, the witness was asked why he did not turn the water off, and various questions were also asked him for the purpose of showing that the city did not build the ditch through the block, and that he, as water-master, had not at any time exercised, or assumed to exercise, any control over it; all of which was objected to as immaterial, and the objections sustained. It is the exclusion of this testimony on cross-examination that the appellant claims renders the testimony improper.
The plaintiff also put in evidence the following city ordinance, which was received against the objection of the defendant that it was immaterial and irrelevant:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeBry v. Noble
...cases held that municipalities either were or could be held liable for negligence in a variety of activities. Levy v. Salt Lake City, 5 Utah 302, 16 P. 598 (1887) (Levy II ) (construction of ditch); Yearance v. Salt Lake City, 6 Utah 398, 24 P. 254 (1890) (obstruction in street); Thomas v. ......
-
Jackson v. City of Grand Forks
...N.E. 43; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U.S. 436, 440, 38 L.Ed. 224, 226, 14 S.Ct. 387; McLeod v. Spokane, 26 Wash. 346, 67 P. 74; Levy v. Salt Lake City, 5 Utah 302, 16 P. 599; Flater v. Fey, 70 Mich. 644, 38 N.W. 656; v. Pella, 86 Iowa 238, 53 N.W. 226; Shumway v. Burlington, 108 Iowa 424, 79 N.W.......
-
Davis v. Midvale City
... ... Appeal ... from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; P. C ... Evans, Judge ... Action ... by Nora F. Davis against Midvale ... for injury caused by negligence. Levy v. Salt ... Lake City , 5 Utah 302, 16 P. 598 ... There ... are several decisions of ... ...
-
Mt. Olivet Cemetery Ass'n v. Salt Lake City
... ... "And ... provided, further, that when the city council of any city is ... acting as distributing agent of the water, not the property ... of the corporation, outside of, or within, the corporate ... limits of such city, such council may, and is hereby ... authorized to levy such a tax [65 Utah 200] as may be ... necessary annually, not to exceed thirty cents per acre or ... share for the purpose of distributing, purchasing, or ... developing water, said tax shall be a lien upon such water ... right," etc ... The ... next Legislature, 1905, amended the ... ...