Ulmen v. Town of Mt. Angel
| Decision Date | 17 January 1911 |
| Parties | ULMEN v. TOWN OF MT. ANGEL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Wm. Galloway, Judge.
Suit by Anna Ulmen against the Town of Mt. Angel. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This is a suit to enjoin the defendant town from draining certain streets into a gully, referred to in the pleadings as a ditch or waterway, which extends along plaintiff's residence property. A decree was rendered by the trial court in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Carson & Brown, for appellant.
M.A. Seitz (Rauch & Senn, on the brief), for respondent.
It appears from the evidence that a gully, formed by surface water, extending westerly through the southern part of the town of Mt. Angel, drains that portion lying south and east of the corner of College and Main streets, together with other ground. It crosses Main street about 1,000 feet southerly from said street corner, and passes westerly along the north line of plaintiff's lot, which is 100 feet wide, north and south, and 330 feet, east and west, on the west side of, and adjacent to, Main street. The course of that street is N. 21~ 54' E., and the Southern Pacific railroad crosses it in a course a little west of north near the intersection of Church street; Charles and College streets being next north of Church, extending east and west. In the summer of 1908 the defendant town constructed a tile drain, about 10 inches in diameter and 4 or 5 feet under the surface, commencing on the north side of Charles street some distance east of Main street, and extending westerly to Main thence southerly on the east side of Main street to a point within 60 feet of the gully, and thence by an open ditch to the gully near the northeast corner of plaintiff's property. The drainage on Charles street into the tile extends from a point 700 feet east of Main street, and the witness Zollner, when asked, "if that is all the water from any of the streets conducted into the tile," answered: "Most of the streets." Much of the business part of the town is situated on the east side of Main street and extending east on Charles street; there being as many as 14 or 15 business houses in that vicinity mentioned incidentally in the evidence. There is also a creamery in that neighborhood, which is drained into the tile on Main street. Plaintiff's property is low ground, described by some witnesses as a swale, the well thereon being within 16 feet of the gully or ditch on the north line, and the evidence tends to show that the water in the well is, to some extent, affected by the conditions of the water in the ditch; that, when the water in the ditch is discolored, it is also discolored in the well. One witness testifies that in the summer there is no water in the gully at all; that since this tile drain was laid the surface water is dark, and does not flow entirely through the ditch at first, but is absorbed by the dry ground, some description being given of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornburg v. Port of Portland
...of the public' will not authorize the public to acquire an easement of nuisance by prescription. Ulmen v. Town of Mt. Angel, 57 Or. 547, 112 P. 529, 36 L.R.A.,N.S., 140. A careful reading of the case of Richards v. Washington Terminal Co., 233 U.S. 546, 34 S.Ct. 654, 657, 58 L.Ed. 1088, cit......
-
Levene v. City of Salem
...through such drain, empties them, either immediately or by force of gravitation, upon a person's land. Ulmen v. Town of Mt. Angel, 57 Or. 547, 550, 112 P. 529, 36 L.R.A., N.S., 140; Harbison v. City of Hillsboro, 103 Or. 257, 274, 204 P. 613. It is quite generally held that such action upon......
-
Mark v. State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
...respect, the situation is the opposite of that in Wilson v. City of Portland, 153 Or. 679, 58 P.2d 257 (1936), and Ulmen v. Town of Mt. Angel, 57 Or. 547, 112 P. 529 (1911), which the dissent cites. In each of those cases, the municipality actively created the condition that constituted a n......
-
Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service Dist.
...no more right to pollute the waters of a stream or to injure the lands of another than has a natural person."); Ulmen v. Town of Mt. Angel, 57 Or. 547, 550-51, 112 P. 529 (1911) ("It is the duty of the town to dispose of its drainage in some manner that will not create a nuisance to individ......