Barnard v. Shirley

41 L.R.A. 737, 47 N.E. 671, 151 Ind. 160, 1897 Ind. LEXIS 125
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 22, 1897
DocketNo. 18,103
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 41 L.R.A. 737 (Barnard v. Shirley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barnard v. Shirley, 41 L.R.A. 737, 47 N.E. 671, 151 Ind. 160, 1897 Ind. LEXIS 125 (Ind. 1897).

Opinion

McCabe, C. J.

The appellee sued the appellants to recover damages for, and to restrain them from causing cer’falh' mineral water coming from defendants' well to flow through a certain spring branch adjoining plaintiff’s land, by which the waters of said branch are befouled to the plaintiff’s injury. The issues made were tried by the court, resulting in a, finding and judgment against the defendants, according to the prayer of the complaint. That judgment was, on appeal to this court, reversed for error in sustaining a demurrer to the second paragraph of defendants’ an-I swer. Barnard v. Shirley, 135 Ind. 547, 24 L. E. A. 568. On the return of the case to the circuit court the issues-, were again tried, resulting in a special finding of the facts, upon which the court stated its conclusions of law, upon which it rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, both for damages and enjoining the defendants, as prayed for in the complaint.

The substance of the special finding by the court is: That the land described in the complaint, situate adjoining the city of Martinsville, was purchased by plaintiff from Lafayette Sims on May 10, 1886, and plaintiff has ever since held and possessed the samel [162]*162That said Sims owned and occupied said lands for years before; that said defendant, Elizabeth Barnard, has owned the lots described in the complaint, numbers twenty and thirty, in the original plat of the town of Martinsville, Morgan county, Indiana, since the year 1868, and still owns the same; that, at the time of selling, and delivering to plaintiff the lands above described, said Sims also sold and delivered to her 160 acres lying about one mile to the northeast of said first described land, .and other lands adjacent to said lands first described and lying west thereof; that said 160 acres is a hill tract, and from the foot of the hills near the southwest corner of the tract there puts forth a springs of pure water, suitable for any use, and which, flowing in a southwesterly course, unites its waters with those of several others of equally pure water, and one of which is of greater volume than plaintiff’s spring, and the waters of these various springs combined, would, if combined at their head, fill a four-inch pipe with pure spring water, with continuous flow; that prior to 1870 the waters of this branch' flowed as they do now—south and west of south one-fourth of a mile or over, thence west to the east border of the original plat of the town of Martinsville, thence south on the border to and across Washington street, which passes the west side of the court-house square, in the center of the city, where, in times of- heavy rains and freshets, it broke the banks of the ditches dug for it, and the levees made from time to time to confine its waters, and flowed over and inundated a large part of said city, and the southeastern part thereof, and formed large ponds of water, until they sunk or evaporated; that two tanyards were operated near by, and obtained their water from said branch up to 1870, and put their wastage into it; that in 1870 the town corporation of Martinsville [163]*163changed the course and channel of said branch, from its intersection with Pike street in said town, and turned it west to a point due west of the west boundary of the original plat thereof, and a distance of over half a mile, thence south and southwest, onto the said lands first above described, then owned and occupied by said Lafayette Sims, and now owned by plaintiff; that said Sims was consulted in relation thereto by the authorities, and consented to said change of the channel of said stream, and the flowing of the waters thereof upon his said lands that he might have the use of the same for stock water, for which it was suitable; that ever since said change was made the waters of said branch have continued to flow onto the lands so purchased by plaintiff from said Sims; that before said change was made, and before the channel of said branch was cut down on the south side of Pike street, in times of big rains and freshets, the waters of the branch would break out of its channel and flow over Pike street, and form large pools of water in various places in the central parts of said city; that said branch, since the change down said Pike street, flows the distance of about one-half mile through said city, near three-fourths, of its distance being through a part of the city of population and improvement about equal to any other part of said city.

Until within eighteen months past a large tanyard was maintained and operated on Pike street, on the south side thereof, at the point of the turn of said branch west on Pike street, and obtained its water from said branch, and emptied into said branch the refuse from its vats in large quantities at weekly intervals, and which' was of such offensive character, and produced such an offensive odor, as that persons residing in the vicinity were compelled to close their Windows to keep out the stench; and, in connection [164]*164with'this mass of filth, the waters of the' branch, usually accumulated by a temporary dam, would be turned, and the mass- distributed throughout the channel of the branch below, the effects and stain of which would remain for a considerable time; that Martinsville, either as a town or city, has never had other than open ditches, no underground sewers, and the said branch on the south side of Pike street is, and has been since it was opened in 1870, the principal drainage for all that part of the town and city lying north of it, and east of the central part of the city, and in it has been found, and from it has been taken, from time to time, dead animals, such as hogs, dogs, cats, chickens, etc., in all stages of decay.

Said branch is the only living stream passing or that ever has passed through said town or city. In times of heavy rains and freshets, the surface washing and water from near one-third part of said city, and from pasture hills lying north of it, from cross streets and alleys, flow into said branch on said Pike street, carrying into the same the washings from stables and other outbuildings; that some of the persons residing along said branch throw their soapsuds from clothes washings, and kitchen slops into the same, with other kitchen refuse, including the entrails of chickens; that at the present time there is one or more dead animals in said branch, and there is flowing into it, about 600 feet above where the tile drain from defendants’ sanatarium flows into said branch, a tile drain from the Martinsville Sanatarium, which has been connected with said ditch since .this suit was originally filed; that there is now, and long has been, a city ordinance of said city prohibiting anyone from throwing dead animals or any refuse or befouling substance in said branch, and from in any way befouling the same.

[165]*165The Martinsville Sanatarinm has been in operation for three years, and bathes as many patients as are bathed at defendants’, and all the water from said baths enter through said tile into said branch on Pike street, and above where the drainagé from defendants’ sanatarium enters the ditch, and no distinction is made at said Martinsville Sanatarium as to baths given syphilitic patients and others, but the waters from all baths enter said branch together, the distance from the bath house to said branch being about eighty feet.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Irving Materials, Inc. v. Carmody
436 N.E.2d 1163 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1982)
Harp v. Iowa Falls Electric Co.
196 Iowa 317 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1923)
Viso Lorenzo v. Puerto Rico Sugar Co.
5 P.R. Fed. 532 (D. Puerto Rico, 1909)
Straight v. Hover
79 Ohio St. (N.S.) 263 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1909)
Allen v. Thornapple Electric Co.
108 N.W. 79 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)
Hazard Powder Co. v. Somersville Manufacturing Co.
61 A. 519 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1905)
City of Richmond v. Test
48 N.E. 610 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 L.R.A. 737, 47 N.E. 671, 151 Ind. 160, 1897 Ind. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnard-v-shirley-ind-1897.