Pint v. Bauer

• Decision Date: 11 July 1883
• Parties: Mathias Pint v. Henry F. Bauer and another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

16 N.W. 425

31 Minn. 4

Mathias Pint v. Henry F. Bauer and another

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 11, 1883

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Scott county, Macdonald, J., presiding.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

H. J Peck, for appellant.

R. H McClelland, for respondent.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

The allegations of the complaint are that there was a natural watercourse or creek on defendants' land, which flowed into a basin, also situated on defendants' land, and there disappeared by percolation or absorption; that defendants dug ditches upon their land, and, with dirt, logs, plank, and timber, dammed up the natural course of said waters, and thereby diverted them from their natural and usual channel, and turned the same in a volume in and upon the lands of plaintiff, to his great damage. The relief prayed for is damages, and an injunction to restrain a continuance of the alleged trespass. The defendants in their answer deny that they have diverted the water from its natural course, and allege that the natural outlet for it was over and across plaintiff's land, and that all they have done was to remove artificial obstructions, such as sand, gravel, and wood, which had washed into the natural channel, so as to permit the water to follow its usual and natural outlet. The cause was tried with a jury, to whom was submitted a series of specific questions of fact evidently framed with the intention of covering the whole case. These questions, so far as here important, together with the answers of the jury, were as follows:

(1) "Does the natural watercourse (so called) or outlet, which drains the surplus waters complained of, extend from the lands of defendant Lydia Bauer over and across the lands of plaintiff, described in the complaint, and is the natural drainage of said surplus waters over and across said premises of plaintiff?" Answer. "Yes." (5) "Was the ditch complained of dug wholly in an embankment of sand and gravel, which had been deposited there, since the settlement of the county in 1854, by the running waters complained of?" A. "Yes." (6) "Have the defendants, by digging in or removing materials of any kind from the said watercourse or outlet, done any more than remove therefrom sand, gravel, wood, and other material which had been washed in there, and was an obstruction and interference with the original and natural bed of such watercourse or outlet?" A. "No." (8) "Have defendants, or either of them, in any manner obstructed, or interfered with, or changed the said natural watercourse, outlet, or drain, so as to cause more of the said waters to flow upon and over said premises of the plaintiff than would flow over them if said watercourse, outlet, or drain, was in its natural condition, and undisturbed by said defendants, or either of them?" A. "Yes."

Upon these findings each party moved for judgment, whereupon the court ordered judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

This case illustrates the difficulties liable to arise from the very...