Mitchell v. Hahn
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal- from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; 1. The instructions are conflicting and erroneous. 55 Ark. L. Rep. 348. Other instructions were abstract and misleading. 1. There is no conflict nor error in the instruction^. None of them are abstract or misleading. They state the law correctly. 104 Ark. 62; 95 Id. 300; 110 Id. 416; 94 Id. 380; 95 Id. 345; 118 Ark. 1; 95 Id. 345. The verdict is supported by the evidence and the instructions were harmonious and correct.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCULLOCH, C. J.
This is an action instituted by appellant Mitchell against appellees, E. J. Hahn and the Northern Construction Company, for recovery of damages on account of alleged negligence of the defendants in damming up a natural stream of water so as to overflow lands of appellant on which there were growing crops. The case was tried before a jury and the verdict was in favor of appellees.
A certain drainage district was organized in White County, Arkansas, and appellees contracted with the district to. construct the improvement, and in doing so dammed up Overflow Creek in order to secure a sufficient…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wood v. Drainage District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Timothy J. Foohey Dredging Co. v. MabinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
3Cited by10 opinions
- Dye v. BurdickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977
- Southeast Construction Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- Burt v. HendersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Manila School Dist. No. 15 v. SandersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
- Panhandle Const. Co. v. ShiremanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.