Hoard v. City of Des Moines
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Polls, Circuit Court. The plaintiff, and other persons, are tbe owners of certain lots situated on and near the east bank of the Des Moines river, in the city of Des Moines. These lots have been subject to overflow in times of flood from the water of the river, and from the Coon river, which empties into the Des Moines river from the west.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polls, Circuit Court. The plaintiff, and other persons, are tbe owners of certain lots situated on and near the east bank of the Des Moines river, in the city of Des Moines. These lots have been subject to overflow in times of flood from the water of the river, and from the Coon river, which empties into the Des Moines river from the west. In 1880 the city authorities constructed an embankment or levee along the first street east of the plaintiff’s lots, and nearly parallel with the river, This embankment was raised above high water mark, so as to prevent overflow from the rivers…
1Opinion of the CourtRothrock, J.
It is not claimed that the city obstructed a natural stream by the erection of the levee. The most that can be claimed from the evidence is that, after the levee was constructed, the water in time of overflow was deeper on plaintiff’s lots, because by the levee it was not permitted to overflow that part of the city east of the levee, and pass off in that direction. The evidence does not show that the levee could have been constructed upon the bank of the river, or between plaintiff’s lots and the river. On the contrary, it is shown! beyond question that the river bank is largely composed of…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Lamb v. Reclamation District No. 108California Supreme Court · 1887
- Cass v. DicksWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- O'Connell v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- McCoy v. Board of DirectorsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Keck v. VenghauseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.