Bungenstock v. Nishnabotna Drainage District
Supreme Court of Missouri
'Appeal from Atcbison Circuit Court. — Hon. O. A. Anthony, J udge; (1) The motion to strike out that part of the answer enclosed in brackets should have been sustained. That part of the answer constituted no defense whatever. The money assessed by the commissioners was for right of way and not for the privilege of damming the water on the plaintiff’s land and making a stagnant pool of the river.
Read the full summary
'Appeal from Atcbison Circuit Court. — Hon. O. A. Anthony, J udge; (1) The motion to strike out that part of the answer enclosed in brackets should have been sustained. That part of the answer constituted no defense whatever. The money assessed by the commissioners was for right of way and not for the privilege of damming the water on the plaintiff’s land and making a stagnant pool of the river. The purpose of the ditch as alleged by defendant in its answer was to straighten and deepen the channel of the river. Edmondson v. Moberly, 98 Mo. 523. '(2) All of that testimony as to the condition…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
This is an action for damages claimed to have arisen by reason of the improper construction by defendant, a corporation organized under the general laws of this State for drainage purposes, of a drainage ditch through plain*204tiff’s land. The petition, after alleging the incorporation of defendant, and that plaintiff is the owner of the lands through which the ditch runs, proceeds as follows:
“That said ditch or drain enters plaintiff’s land and crosses through and over the same as follows:
“Commencing in said Nishnabotna river at a point one chain east and seven chains south of the northwest…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Scovill v. GlasnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Paddock v. SomesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Finney v. BerrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Walser v. WearSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
- Smith v. City of SedaliaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Anderson v. Inter-River Drainage & Levee DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- State Ex Rel. Hausgen v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Missouri Public Service Company v. HuntMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.