Roland v. Jumper Creek Drainage Dist.

• Decision Date: 14 February 1925
• Docket Number: No. 335.,335.
• Parties: ROLAND et al. v. JUMPER CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

4 F.2d 719 (1925)

ROLAND et al. v. JUMPER CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. et al.

No. 335.

District Court, S. D. Florida.

February 14, 1925.

H. M. Hampton, of Ocala, Fla., and A. M. Roland, of Bushnell, Fla., for complainants.

P. A. Vans Agnew, of Winter Park, Fla., and Giles J. Patterson, of Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant Canal Const. Co.

CALL, District Judge.

This suit was brought in the state court in Sumter county, by some 52 persons, residents and citizens of Florida, against the Jumper Creek drainage district, a corporation of Florida, the supervisors of said drainage district, the engineer of said district, and the Canal Construction Company, a corporation of the state of Illinois.

The bill alleges that each of the complainants is seized and possessed of lands in Sumter county, Fla.; that a drainage district comprising approximately 25,210 acres was duly established under the laws of the state, and bonds issued to carry out the project, pursuant to certain plans made by the engineer and adopted by the supervisors; that a contract was duly let to the Canal Construction Company to dig the canal, lateral ditches, and drains according to said plans and specifications for $450,000; that pursuant to said contract the Construction Company commenced work, beginning at the Center Hill basin, in said district; that there are two distinct elevations wherein the surface water is retained, one known as the Center Hill territory or basin, the other near Bushnell; that the Center Hill basin is some 8 or 10 feet higher than the basin near Bushnell; that a levy has been made of an assessment according to the benefits to be derived by the lands in said district, and said lands will be taxed annually for the payment of same; that in order to drain the lands it was necessary to drain the higher Center Hill basin through the lower basin near Bushnell, so that the waters thereof could be carried to Jumper creek as the outlet; that the territory to be drained around the Center Hill basin was much larger than the basin near Bushnell, and the waters therein were of much greater volume; that it was necessary that these waters should be carried in ditches and drains through the basin near Bushnell in order to reach the common outlet; that plans on which the contract was based show that the level of the Center Hill basin is much higher than the basin near Bushnell; that the contractor well knew, at the time of making the bid for the work and in making the contract, that letting the water of the Center Hill basin loose into the lower basin near Bushnell would necessarily flood the territory below; that there were a series of hills between the two basins, and there were certain drains which, in case of excessive rains, permitted the water to flow into the lower basin, but not sufficient to overflow the territory surrounding the lower basin; that the natural drainage of the lower basin at all times was sufficient to carry off the excessive rainfall and to keep the same drained for all necessary purposes; that the Construction Company dug the main canal from the Center Hill basin, through the highlands separating the two basins, to the eastern edge of the basin near Bushnell, thereby letting the waters of the upper basin flow into the lower; that the Construction Company knew, or ought to have known, that the waters of the upper basin would overflow the lower basin, unless sufficient outlet was made from the lower basin to a common outlet; that the Construction Company negligently opened the canal and allowed the waters from the upper basin to overflow the lower basin, thereby flooding the highlands as well as the lowlands in said lower basin and adjacent to it, and such water will remain upon said lands until proper ditches are dug or it is evaporated; that the crops growing upon the lands of complainants were greatly damaged and injured, the amount of which cannot now be determined; that it is necessary that the waters from the upper basin be shut off from the lower basin to prevent a continuance of the damage, and will continue so long as it is permitted to allow the waters of the upper basin free ingress into the lower, and the same constitutes a nuisance; that no steps have been taken by the Construction Company to remedy the condition; that it was wholly unnecessary from an engineering standpoint to permit the waters of the upper basin into the lower until proper drainage had been provided in the lower basin to carry them off.

The bill then describes the individual holdings and damage claimed by each of the complainants, and then alleges that it would require a multiplicity of actions, should each complainant bring his separate action; the damage being caused by the one act. It is alleged that the contractor, being a nonresident, could remove all its property and complainants be left remediless. It is alleged that it is necessary for the court to assume jurisdiction over the construction of the drainage project, etc.

The prayers are as follows: (1) To appoint a receiver to take charge of the contractor's equipment, and immediately shut off the water from the upper basin, and cut ditches in the lower basin to carry the water thereon to the outlet. (2) To restrain the contractor from permitting any further water from the upper basin to run into the lower basin until adequate drainage can be established and maintained, to permit the waters from the upper basin to flow to the common outlet without overflowing the lower. (3) To restrain the contractor from overflowing the lands of any of the complainants. (4) To restrain the district supervisors from paying to the contractor any further moneys until all the rights of complainants have been adjudicated. (5) For an accounting of the damage suffered and to be suffered by reason of the overflow. (6) To...