WOOD, J.
These suits were instituted to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff during the years 1913,1914, and 1915 because of overflow of lands of plaintiff.
It was alleged that an opening in the railroad embankment a quarter of a mile north of plaintiff’s land was inadequate to allow the passage, under the railroad tracks, of water which naturally accumulated at that point, with the result that such surplus quantity of water was deflected and caused to run southward along the west bank of the railroad to a point where it overflowed into another water course, thereby swelling the volume of water in such second watercourse; that in the original construction of the railroad embankment, the channel of this second watercouse was changed so as to cause an abrupt curve in -the same, which caused the water to pour out over the east bank of the channel and thereby overflow plaintiff’s land, causing damage by reason of the destruction of her crops in the years 1913,1914 and 1915 in the aggregate sum of $969.50, and by making ditches, holes and gulleys therein and washing off the top soil, to her damage in the sum of $1,800.00. Wherefore, she prayed judgment for the sum of $2,769.50.
A suit was filed against the railway company, and also one against the receiver, the complaints contained the same allegations with the exceptions of the allegations concerning the receivership.
The answers denied all the material allegations of the complaints as to negligence. The cases were consolidated and tried together. The jury returned a verdict assessing amounts of damages accruing for the years 1913,1914 and 1915.
Appellant concedes in its abstract that there was ample evidence upon which the jury might have found either for the plaintiff or the defendant upon the sole question as to whether or not the overflow of plaintiff’s property was caused by the negligence of the defendant at a point where the second or southern watercourse passes under the railroad track.
There was no evidence introduced on the trial concerning the condition or capacity of the northern channel, that is, the channel which it is alleged in plaintiff’s complaint was diverted through the negligence of the company into the southern channel.
At the close of the evidence the plaintiff’s attorney offered in evidence the pleadings and judgment in a case between the plaintiff and the defendant railway company which was tried in 1913. The appellants objected, whereupon the following stipulation of counsel was entered into: “It is hereby stipulated by and between the respective attorneys for the parties hereto, that since the trial in 1913, pleadings and judgment in which suit have been admitted in evidence, that the trestle mentioned in the complaint as a quarter of a mile north of plaintiff’s land has been altered and changed in the following respects, towit: By the construction of an addition thereto, consisting of a two-panel trestle' or bridge, with a waterway-area of seventy-two square feet.”
The court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, on the ground of res adjudicada, and this raises the first question for our consideration.
While the appellee alleges in both the snit of 1913 and in the present suit that about a quarter of a mile north of her land there was a natural channel or watercourse sufficient in size to carry all the water naturally accumulating therein, which the appellant had obstructed and filled up by not leaving a sufficient opening in its embankment across said stream to allow the water to pass through, thereby diverting the same into another and larger channel about two hundred yards west of appellee’s land, she also alleges in these complaints that this second channel was sufficient to carry off all the water which naturally accumulated therein, but that appellant, by the negligent and careless construction of its railway over this channel, so changed the watercourse as to make an abrupt curve therein, which curve caused the water therein, when it was high, to overflow appellant’s land, which resulted in her damage, and for which she sued.
The allegations show that the gravamen of appellee’s charge in both complaints is that appellant, by the negligent construction of its railroad made an abrupt change or curve in a watercourse which ran about two hundred yards from her land, which abrupt curve and change resulted in her damage. The allegations plainly show that but for this change in the watercourse near her land she would not have been damaged. In other words, the proximate cause of her damage, as shown by the pleadings in both lawsuits, was the negligent construction of the railroad over the watercourse near her land, which changed its course and caused the land to overflow.
Now the appellants contend that the plea of res adjudicata can not avail because, while the allegations of negligence in the two lawsuits remain the same, the conditions on the last lawsuit were not the same as they were on the first trial, because of the fact, as shown by the stipulation, that since the trial in 1913 the trestle mentioned in the complaint as being a quarter of a mile north of appellee’s land had been changed by the addition thereto of a two-panel trestle or bridge with 'a waterway area of seventy-two square feet. "We must take it from the statement in appellant’s abstract, and its failure to set forth the evidence in favor of the appellee on the issue of negligence, that the testimony was ample to show that, notwithstanding the above change in the trestle a quarter of a mile north of appellee’s land, the undisputed evidence showed that the lands of appellee still overflowed as they did before this change. Therefore, we must assume that the court, in directing the jury to return a verdict, found that the undisputed evidence showed that the conditions, so far as they affected appellee’s cause of action and right to recover damages on account of appellant’s negligence, were the same on the trial of the last lawsuit as they were in the first.
If the change by the enlargement of the upper trestle did not prevent or tend to prevent the overflow and damage to appellee’s land, caused by the negligent construction of the embankment over the watercourse near her land, and if this curve or change in the watercourse two hundred yards west of appellee’s land, caused by the negligence of appellant, would necessarily result in damage to her, notwithstanding the change in the upper trestle, then there was no change in the conditions as to the negligence which was the proximate cause of her damage, between the first lawsuit and the last. In other words, the existing conditions of negligence which were the proximate cause of her injury were shown to be the same in the last lawsuit as they were in the first. This is the test.
(1) Mr. Black, in his work on judgments, announces the correct doctrine when he says (volume 2, section 742): “According to the generally accepted doctrine, in an action for the continuance of a trespass or nuisance, a former proceeding upon the same cause of action and between the same parties, or those under whom they claim, wherein judgment was recovered by the plaintiff, is conclusive of the rights of the parties; the defendant is es-topped to deny the existence or character of the nuisance or the plaintiff’s right to recover, and the latter need only prove that the nuisance remains in the same condition as before, or in a more or less damaging condition.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
WOOD, J.
These suits were instituted to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff during the years 1913,1914, and 1915 because of overflow of lands of plaintiff.
It was alleged that an opening in the railroad embankment a quarter of a mile north of plaintiff’s land was inadequate to allow the passage, under the railroad tracks, of water which naturally accumulated at that point, with the result that such surplus quantity of water was deflected and caused to run southward along the west bank of the railroad to a point where it overflowed into another water course, thereby swelling the volume of water in such second watercourse; that in the original construction of the railroad embankment, the channel of this second watercouse was changed so as to cause an abrupt curve in -the same, which caused the water to pour out over the east bank of the channel and thereby overflow plaintiff’s land, causing damage by reason of the destruction of her crops in the years 1913,1914 and 1915 in the aggregate sum of $969.50, and by making ditches, holes and gulleys therein and washing off the top soil, to her damage in the sum of $1,800.00. Wherefore, she prayed judgment for the sum of $2,769.50.
A suit was filed against the railway company, and also one against the receiver, the complaints contained the same allegations with the exceptions of the allegations concerning the receivership.
The answers denied all the material allegations of the complaints as to negligence. The cases were consolidated and tried together. The jury returned a verdict assessing amounts of damages accruing for the years 1913,1914 and 1915.
Appellant concedes in its abstract that there was ample evidence upon which the jury might have found either for the plaintiff or the defendant upon the sole question as to whether or not the overflow of plaintiff’s property was caused by the negligence of the defendant at a point where the second or southern watercourse passes under the railroad track.
There was no evidence introduced on the trial concerning the condition or capacity of the northern channel, that is, the channel which it is alleged in plaintiff’s complaint was diverted through the negligence of the company into the southern channel.
At the close of the evidence the plaintiff’s attorney offered in evidence the pleadings and judgment in a case between the plaintiff and the defendant railway company which was tried in 1913. The appellants objected, whereupon the following stipulation of counsel was entered into: “It is hereby stipulated by and between the respective attorneys for the parties hereto, that since the trial in 1913, pleadings and judgment in which suit have been admitted in evidence, that the trestle mentioned in the complaint as a quarter of a mile north of plaintiff’s land has been altered and changed in the following respects, towit: By the construction of an addition thereto, consisting of a two-panel trestle' or bridge, with a waterway-area of seventy-two square feet.”
The court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, on the ground of res adjudicada, and this raises the first question for our consideration.
While the appellee alleges in both the snit of 1913 and in the present suit that about a quarter of a mile north of her land there was a natural channel or watercourse sufficient in size to carry all the water naturally accumulating therein, which the appellant had obstructed and filled up by not leaving a sufficient opening in its embankment across said stream to allow the water to pass through, thereby diverting the same into another and larger channel about two hundred yards west of appellee’s land, she also alleges in these complaints that this second channel was sufficient to carry off all the water which naturally accumulated therein, but that appellant, by the negligent and careless construction of its railway over this channel, so changed the watercourse as to make an abrupt curve therein, which curve caused the water therein, when it was high, to overflow appellant’s land, which resulted in her damage, and for which she sued.
The allegations show that the gravamen of appellee’s charge in both complaints is that appellant, by the negligent construction of its railroad made an abrupt change or curve in a watercourse which ran about two hundred yards from her land, which abrupt curve and change resulted in her damage. The allegations plainly show that but for this change in the watercourse near her land she would not have been damaged. In other words, the proximate cause of her damage, as shown by the pleadings in both lawsuits, was the negligent construction of the railroad over the watercourse near her land, which changed its course and caused the land to overflow.
Now the appellants contend that the plea of res adjudicata can not avail because, while the allegations of negligence in the two lawsuits remain the same, the conditions on the last lawsuit were not the same as they were on the first trial, because of the fact, as shown by the stipulation, that since the trial in 1913 the trestle mentioned in the complaint as being a quarter of a mile north of appellee’s land had been changed by the addition thereto of a two-panel trestle or bridge with 'a waterway area of seventy-two square feet. "We must take it from the statement in appellant’s abstract, and its failure to set forth the evidence in favor of the appellee on the issue of negligence, that the testimony was ample to show that, notwithstanding the above change in the trestle a quarter of a mile north of appellee’s land, the undisputed evidence showed that the lands of appellee still overflowed as they did before this change. Therefore, we must assume that the court, in directing the jury to return a verdict, found that the undisputed evidence showed that the conditions, so far as they affected appellee’s cause of action and right to recover damages on account of appellant’s negligence, were the same on the trial of the last lawsuit as they were in the first.
If the change by the enlargement of the upper trestle did not prevent or tend to prevent the overflow and damage to appellee’s land, caused by the negligent construction of the embankment over the watercourse near her land, and if this curve or change in the watercourse two hundred yards west of appellee’s land, caused by the negligence of appellant, would necessarily result in damage to her, notwithstanding the change in the upper trestle, then there was no change in the conditions as to the negligence which was the proximate cause of her damage, between the first lawsuit and the last. In other words, the existing conditions of negligence which were the proximate cause of her injury were shown to be the same in the last lawsuit as they were in the first. This is the test.
(1) Mr. Black, in his work on judgments, announces the correct doctrine when he says (volume 2, section 742): “According to the generally accepted doctrine, in an action for the continuance of a trespass or nuisance, a former proceeding upon the same cause of action and between the same parties, or those under whom they claim, wherein judgment was recovered by the plaintiff, is conclusive of the rights of the parties; the defendant is es-topped to deny the existence or character of the nuisance or the plaintiff’s right to recover, and the latter need only prove that the nuisance remains in the same condition as before, or in a more or less damaging condition.”
And at page 936, section 614, lie says: ‘ ‘ The doctrine of res judicata does not rest upon the fact that a particular proposition has been affirmed and denied in the pleadings, but upon the fact that it has been fully and fairly investigated and tried — that the parties have had an adequate opportunity to say and prove all that they can in relation to it, that the minds of court and jury have been brought to bear upon it, and so it has been solemnly and finally adjudicated. # * * For these reasons, the more correct doctrine is that the estoppel covers the point which was actually litigated, and which actually determined the verdict or finding, whether it was statedly and technically in issue or not. ’ ’
Appellee obtained judgments in former suits on complaints alleging precisely the same grounds of negligence as alleged in the complaint in the present suit, and before there was any enlargement of the trestle of the upper stream. In the present suit, although it was shown that there was an addition to the trestle, enlarging the same, nevertheless the proof on the part of the appellee showed that this change or enlargement of such trestle did not lessen or prevent or affect in any manner the overflow caused by the negligence of appellant in so constructing its railway as to cause a sudden curve and changing of the course of the stream (Breedlove creek) near her land. In other words, the undisputed evidence showed that appellee’s land was overflowed after the enlargement of the upper trestle, the same as it was before, showing that the change made in the upper trestle did not change the conditions caused through the negligence of appellant in changing the course of the stream near her land that caused it to be overflowed.
It is stated in the brief of counsel for appellee that the same witnesses testified who testified in the former case, the same map that was used by the railway company in the former suit was offered in evidence, that the witnesses gave the same testimony that they did on the former hearing. These statements are not challenged, and no testimony is set forth controverting the statements. The stipulation did not change the conditions caused by the acts of negligence upon which appellee’s cause of action was predicated. The cause of action in the former and in the present suit was identical.
In Edwards v. Wallace, 108 Ark. 574, 578, we said: “The estoppel resulting from the thing adjudged does not depend upon whether there is the same demand in both cases, but exists even although there be different demands, where the question upon which the recovery of the second demand depends has, under identical circumstances and conditions, been previously concluded by a judgment between the parties or their privies.”
It follows that the court was correct in holding that the doctrine of res judicata applied in favor of the appellee, under the facts of this record, and did not err in directing a verdict in her favor.
(II) The court erred in striking from the complaint against the receiver all items of damage alleged to have occurred to appellee prior to his appointment on August 19, 1915. Appellee alleged in her complaint against the receiver that he was appointed as such of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company on August 19, 1915; that in the order appointing said receiver the following language was used: “That said receiver be and he is hereby authorized and empowered to institute and prosecute within this State or elsewhere, and in his own name as receiver, or in the name of the def endant railway company, as he may be' advised by counsel, all such suits as in his judgment may be necessary for the recovery or proper protection of said property, or any part thereof, and the discharge of his trust, and likewise to defend, compromise or settle any and all actions which may be instituted against him as receiver, and to appear in and conduct the prosecution or defense of, or compromise or settle, any and all actions which may be instituted against him as receiver, and to appear in and conduct the prosecution or defense of, or compromise or settle, any actions, proceedings or suits now pending or which may hereafter be brought in any court or before any officer, department, commission or tribunal in which the defendant railway company is or shall be a party, which in the judgment of said receiver, affect or may affect the property of which he is hereby appointed receiver; but except upon further order or directions of this court, no payment shall be made by said receiver in respect of any such suits, actions or proceedings and no action taken by the receiver in the defense or settlement of any such actions or suits against the defendant railway company shall have the effect of establishing any claim upon or right in any property or funds in the possession of the receiver so as to alter or change any existing equities or legal rights of the parties.”
In the recent case of Bush, Receiver, v. State, 128 Ark. 448, quoting from Jordan v. Harris, 98 Ark. 200, we said: “ ‘The receiver of an insolvent corporation stands in the place of the corporation and has only such rights as it had, so that the rights of third parties are not increased, diminished or varied by his appointment. * So here the receiver stood in the place of the corporation owning the railroad. ’ ’
The broad power and leave conferred upon the receiver by the order of the Federal court appointing him implies a consent upon the part of such court in advance that he may be sued for acts of the railroad company prior to his appointment. This leave for him to be sued for acts of the company prior to his appointment is plainly to be inferred from the language of the order making the appointment. Therefore, if consent was necessary it was granted in advance. The court therefore erred in striking from the complaint against the receiver the damages that accrued to appellee prior to August 19, 1915.
The judgment in favor of the appellee against the railway company will be affirmed. And the judgment in favor of the appellee against the receiver will be amended and judgment rendered here in her favor against the receiver for the damages that accrued to her as returned by the verdict of the jury for the years 1913 and 1914, as well as for the year 1915. With this amendment the judgment in favor of the appellee against the receiver will he in all respects affirmed.