Poulsen v. New Sweden Irr. Dist, 7315

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtMiller, Justice.
Citation67 Idaho 177,174 P.2d 206
PartiesPOULSEN et al. v. NEW SWEDEN IRR. DIST
Docket Number7315
Decision Date04 November 1946

174 P.2d 206

67 Idaho 177

POULSEN et al.
v.
NEW SWEDEN IRR. DIST

No. 7315

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 4, 1946


Appeal from District Court, Ninth Judicial District, Bonneville County; C. J. Taylor, Judge.

Affirmed.

A. A. Merrill, of Idaho Falls, for appellants.

"A verdict for finding of a jury must be based upon and conform to the evidence; and a verdict wholly unsupported by any evidence whatever should not be allowed to stand." Abbot's Civil Jury Trials, 3d Ed., page 748.

"A verdict ought not to stand, where there is clear and convincing proof of an essential fact contrary to the findings of the jury, and no evidence fairly tending to sustain it." Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Yung, 113 Ind. 159, 15 N.E. 220, 3 Am.St.Rep. 630.

"A new trial should be granted where the alleged insufficiency of the evidence is convincingly shown." Syllabus in Jones v. Bartlett, 36 Idaho 433, 211 P. 555; Western Min. Supply Co. v. Melzner, 48 Mont. 174, 136 P. 44; Martini v. Oregon W. R. & N. Co., 73 Or. 283, 144 P. 104; Johnson v. Domer, 76 Wash. 677, 136 P. 1169.

Paul T. Peterson and St. Clair & St. Clair, all of Idaho Falls, for respondent.

"This court has repeatedly held that where there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, it will not be set aside on the ground of insufficiency of evidence." McMaster v. Dunn, 49 Idaho 241, 287 P. 201; Morton v. Whitson, 45 Idaho 28, 260 P. 426; Walling v. McMillan Sheep Co., 40 Idaho 513, 234 P. 152; Woodland v. Hodson, 35 Idaho 514, 207 P. 715.

"There was sufficient evidence before the jury to justify them in returning the verdict they found, and in such case we cannot, under the established rule of this court, disturb their verdict. The rule is too well established in this jurisdiction to require more than mention." Mitchell v. Atwood, 55 Idaho 772, 47 P.2d 680; Boomer v. Isley, 49 Idaho 666, 290 P. 405.

Miller, Justice. Budge, Givens and Holden, JJ., and Porter, D. J., concur.

OPINION

Miller, Justice.

[67 Idaho 178] The plaintiffs and appellants, Joseph Poulsen and Glen Poulsen, prior to and at the time of the institution of this action, were farmers, owning approximately 170 acres of land, 100 acres of which was under cultivation and the greater portion thereof in 1945 was planted to potatoes. Said land is situate in what is called the New Sweden Irrigation District, Bonneville County, Idaho. The Great Western Canal, owned and operated by the New Sweden Irrigation District, the defendant and respondent herein, runs along the northerly and westerly part of appellants' land and from which the appellants and numerous other farmers in the New Sweden Irrigation District are supplied with water for the purpose of irrigating their [174 P.2d 207] respective farms. Said canal is higher than the level of appellants' land.

[67 Idaho 179] On July 12, 1945, said canal suffered a break and the water therein and therefrom flooded over appellants' land and other farms in that vicinity. At the time of said break, said canal was carrying approximately 16,000 inches of water. At the time the canal broke, appellants had planted 93 acres of potatoes and some 70 acres thereof were flooded. The transcript of this case is very voluminous, consisting of 700 pages. Immediately following the break of the canal and the flooding of July 12, 1945, the New Sweden Irrigation District Board appointed three appraisers to estimate the damage occasioned as a result of the flooding of appellants' premises. All of said appraisers were potato growers of considerable experience. After an examination of appellants' farm, the appraisers submitted their estimates of damage to the land, potatoes and the potato cellar belonging to appellants. The average of those estimates was increased by respondent in an amount of approximately $ 400 and the appellants accepted from respondent the sum of $ 3,500, which amount was receipted for in full settlement for the damage sustained to appellants' land, potatoes and potato cellar as a result of the flooding of July 12, 1945.

On August 25, 1945, the canal bank again broke at about the same place as formerly, and the water therefrom flooded practically the same acreage as had been covered by the first flooding. The respondent appointed the same three appraisers to estimate the damage occasioned by the second flooding, and the average estimate submitted by said appraisers was in the sum of $ 1,433.33. The respondent offered appellants $ 1,000 on account of the damage sustained, which amount the appellants refused to accept, and later respondent offered appellants $ 2,000. Appellants again refused to accept the latter offer of $ 2,000, and on December 10, 1945, instituted this action by filing their complaint, consisting of three causes of action in aggregate sum of $ 8,600, together with interest and costs. The case was tried by the court and a jury and continued for a period of four days. February 10, 1946, the cause having been submitted, the jury returned its verdict in favor of appellants and against respondent in the aggregate sum of $ 2,000, being $ 750 on the first cause of action, $ 1,000 on the second cause of action, and $ 250 on the third cause of action. February 10, 1946, the court made and entered judgment on the verdict in the sum of $ 2,000 with interest at 6% per annum and costs and disbursements in the sum of $ 123.90. March 11, 1946, appellants served and filed notice of appeal. The appeal is from the judgment.

It will be observed that the damage sustained as a result of the flooding of July 12, 1945, is not here involved, as the amount therefor was satisfactorily adjusted and settled. There seems to be no objection...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Seamons v. Spackman, No. 8670
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 6, 1959
    ...Allen v. Laudahn, 59 Idaho 207, 81 P.2d 734; Summerfield v. Pringle, 65 Idaho 300, 144 P.2d 214; Poulsen v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 67 Idaho 177, 174 P.2d 206; Mason v. Mootz, 73 Idaho 461, 253 P.2d 240. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury. Mitchell v. Atwood, 55 Idaho 772, 47 P.2d ......
  • Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co., No. 8316
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 10, 1956
    ...Allen v. Laudahn, 59 Idaho 207, 81 P.2d 734; Summerfield v. Pringle, 65 Idaho 300, 144 P.2d 214; Poulsen v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 67 Idaho 177, 174 P.2d 206; Mason v. [78 Idaho 205] Mootz, 73 Idaho 461, 253 P.2d 240. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury. Mitchell v. Atwood, 55 Idah......
  • Brothers v. Arave, 7328
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 4, 1946
    ...v. Fisher, 191 Wis. 624, 211 N.W. 757. "In 1 Story on Contracts, § 490, it is said: 'In order to create a contract, it is essential [67 Idaho 177] that there should be a reciprocal assent to a certain and definite proposition. So long as any essential matters are left open for further ......
3 cases
  • Seamons v. Spackman, No. 8670
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 6, 1959
    ...Allen v. Laudahn, 59 Idaho 207, 81 P.2d 734; Summerfield v. Pringle, 65 Idaho 300, 144 P.2d 214; Poulsen v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 67 Idaho 177, 174 P.2d 206; Mason v. Mootz, 73 Idaho 461, 253 P.2d 240. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury. Mitchell v. Atwood, 55 Idaho 772, 47 P.2d ......
  • Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co., No. 8316
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 10, 1956
    ...Allen v. Laudahn, 59 Idaho 207, 81 P.2d 734; Summerfield v. Pringle, 65 Idaho 300, 144 P.2d 214; Poulsen v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 67 Idaho 177, 174 P.2d 206; Mason v. [78 Idaho 205] Mootz, 73 Idaho 461, 253 P.2d 240. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury. Mitchell v. Atwood, 55 Idah......
  • Brothers v. Arave, 7328
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 4, 1946
    ...v. Fisher, 191 Wis. 624, 211 N.W. 757. "In 1 Story on Contracts, § 490, it is said: 'In order to create a contract, it is essential [67 Idaho 177] that there should be a reciprocal assent to a certain and definite proposition. So long as any essential matters are left open for further ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT