Stough v. Steelville Electric Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1917
• Docket Number: No. 1919.,1919.
• Citation: 196 S.W. 37
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: STOUGH v. STEELVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO.

196 S.W. 37

STOUGH v. STEELVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO.

No. 1919.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 16, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Suit by Charles B. Stough against the Steelville Electric Light & Power Company. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred to Supreme Court.

Frank H. Farris, of Rolla, and A. H. Harrison, of Steelville, for appellant. Harry Clymer and E. E. Roberts, both of Steelville, for respondent.

FARRINGTON, J.

The plaintiff (respondent) brought a bill seeking injunctive relief against the defendant, prohibiting it from flowing water from its electric light plant onto plaintiff's lands which adjoin the land of the defendant; the line dividing the two tracts being near the power plant. It is alleged in the bill that the defendant has, by means of a race, brought the water from a spring to its power plant, and is discharging it from the plant after the water runs over the wheel onto plaintiff's land, causing it to be flooded and damaged. The circuit court entered a decree declaring that the defendant was flooding plaintiff's land without right or authority of law, and to the plaintiff's damage. It further found that defendant is a public service corporation, and that it has a right to condemn such lands for the purpose of utilizing the water of this spring in producing electricity. A jury was called to estimate the damages. The court made an order that the defendant be perpetually enjoined from running water from its property over and across the plaintiff's land, unless it pay to plaintiff the damages, to wit, $675, being the amount of damages found by the jury. Defendant took an appeal to this court.

The answer in the case admits that defendant is a corporation furnishing power as a public commodity for public use, that plaintiff is the owner of the land mentioned in the petition, and that defendant is the owner and lessor of the land claimed to be owned and leased by defendant in plaintiff's petition. It then specifically denies that all the facts alleged in the petition are sufficient to constitute ground for injunctive relief, and avers that the facts as pleaded show that plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law; denies that it diverted the course of a waterway upon plaintiff's land; denies that it in any way altered any water course running through or adjacent to plaintiff's land; and denies generally each and every allegation of plaintiff's petition not specifically admitted. It then sets up its claim to the land on which is situated its power plant, millrace, and spring, and alleges that for about 40 years, and long prior to plaintiff's ownership of the land, the prior owners or occupiers of the spring now owned and controlled by defendant erected on said land and near said sprig a grain mill, and operated the same from the water power of said spring, and that to secure the same and to conserve the water of said spring it constructed a dam around said spring, causing the waters thereof to flow and gather in a body or reservoir, and conveyed said water from said spring and reservoir to said mill by and through a millrace, which was constructed at great expense and trouble, and which was a permanent race, leading from said spring to said...