Legal Opinion

Davis v. City of Crawfordsville

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1889No. 13,667PublishedCited by 18 opinions

From the Montgomery Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Elliott, C. J. —

Appellant’s counsel say that; “ The theory upon which the complaint is drawn is, that a municipal corporation has no right to collect surface water in an artificial channel and cast it in a body upon another’s property.” The theory is sound, for a municipal corporation is liable in *2damages if it collects water in an artificial channel and pours it upon the land of another. City of Evansville v. Decker, 84 Ind. 325 (43 Am. Rep. 86); City of Crawfordsville v. Bond, 96 Ind. 236; Lipes v. Hand, 104 Ind. 503: Rice v. City of Evansville, 108 Ind. 7; City of Terre Haute v. Hudnut,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Weis v. City of MadisonIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  2. City of North Vernon v. VoeglerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. City of Teree Haute v. HudnutIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Cummins v. City of SeymourIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Lipes v. HandIndiana Supreme Court · 1885

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. GrovesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  2. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  3. Mitchell v. BainIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Argyelan v. HavilandIndiana Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Wood v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1911

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API