Olson v. Roscoe

30 N.W.2d 664, 149 Neb. 189, 1948 Neb. LEXIS 14
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 16, 1948
DocketNo. 32336
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 N.W.2d 664 (Olson v. Roscoe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Olson v. Roscoe, 30 N.W.2d 664, 149 Neb. 189, 1948 Neb. LEXIS 14 (Neb. 1948).

Opinion

Chappell, J.

. Plaintiffs, landowners in the vicinity of the place in Burt County where Cuming Creek empties into Old Logan Creek, both of which are natural watercourses, brought this action to enjoin defendant from diverting the flow of waters in Cuming Creek, to require the removal by defendant of construction which he had placed in and obstructions which resulted therefrom in said creeks, and to obtain general equitable relief.

The issues were perfected by appropriate pleadings, and tried upon the merits. Thereupon, the trial court entered its decree, finding and adjudging the cause generally in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant. It was found in substance that defendant had diverted [191]*191the waters of Cuming Creek out of its regular channel from a point near the southwest corner of his land, so that the waters thereof, instead of entering Old Logan Creek as formerly, entered the same at a point several hundred feet southwest thereof, which resulted in throwing the waters of Cuming Creek upon the lands of plaintiffs.

Defendant was enjoined from diverting the water of Cuming Creek from its original channel so as to throw the same upon plaintiffs’ lands. He was ordered to remove his construction and obstructions from Cuming Creek as it crossed his land, so that the stream would be returned to its original channel; provided, however, if defendant wished to appropriately straighten or alter the course of Cuming Creek across his own premises, and still leave the outlet of Cuming Creek into Old Logan Creek at the same place as and where it originally existed prior to the diversions, he might do so.

Defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled, and he appealed. Plaintiffs cross-appealed. Defendant assigned as error substantially that the decree was not sustained by the evidence and was contrary to law. Plaintiffs, in their cross-appeal, contended that the trial court erred in refusing to require defendant to clean out that portion of the original channel of Old Logan Creek across the lands of strangers to the action, claiming that the diversions of Cuming Creek by defendant had caused its obstruction. We conclude that neither plaintiffs’ nor defendant’s contentions can be sustained.

For reference and clarity, a plat, fairly showing the immediate area involved and certain facts appearing in the evidence, is hereinafter shown':

[192]*192

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

Related

Dyas v. Morris
235 N.W.2d 636 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1975)
Wilson Concrete Company v. County of Sarpy
202 N.W.2d 597 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1972)
Courter v. Maloley
41 N.W.2d 732 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1950)
Stocker v. Wells
33 N.W.2d 445 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 N.W.2d 664, 149 Neb. 189, 1948 Neb. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olson-v-roscoe-neb-1948.