Davis v. City of Crawfordsville
Indiana Supreme Court
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
- Weis v. City of MadisonIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- City of North Vernon v. VoeglerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- City of Teree Haute v. HudnutIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Cummins v. City of SeymourIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Lipes v. HandIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. GrovesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Mitchell v. BainIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Argyelan v. HavilandIndiana Supreme Court · 1982
- Wood v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1911
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.