Plagge v. Mensing

103 N.W. 152, 126 Iowa 737
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedMarch 9, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 103 N.W. 152 (Plagge v. Mensing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Plagge v. Mensing, 103 N.W. 152, 126 Iowa 737 (iowa 1905).

Opinion

Ladd, J.—

i. drainage: suffioiencyin" of evidence. The defendant is owner of the southwest quarter and the plaintiff the northwest quarter of the same section of land. The natural drainage of both farms is toward the north. In the fall of 1901 defend-ailf three-inch tile from the pond R to 2, an¿ ajg0 £rom p0n(i Q 2, on the accompanying map, and five-inch tiling from 2 to N. He also excavated a straight ditch from the pond N to M, and laid three-inch tile from the pond M to H H. Some witnesses testified that the pond S was drained into the R, but this was a mistake, as the tiling of that was to the southwest. The complaint is that the result of this tiling was to cast more water than formerly upon the plaintiff’s land and flood it. The evidence fails to sustain this claim. Prior to the laying of the tile there was a ditch or depression along which the water passed from R to N; also a ditch or swale from [740]*740Q to N. There is some discrepancy in the record as to the extent of the ponds K, and Q, plaintiff’s witnesses evidently including somewhat of the territory drained by each and sometimes under water, and those of defendant estimating only the portions filled with water after drained by the old ditches. No doubt the water covered considerable ground at times, but we are satisfied that neither pond covered to. exceed an area of three or four rods square, with water sixteen inches deep at the lowest place when it ceased to ' run off through the ditches. Even this water disappeared in dry weather. The swale extended from N, over the plaintiff’s land and that of another, to a creek into which it emptied. Before it passed down E E from N to the large pond, G, however, it filled N by passing through a depression, and the water in this latter pond, when it overflowed, went down the swale, T, to the pond G. Whether II II was a pond is uncertain, but we are inclined to think that water sometimes stood there, and that there was somewhat of a depression from II II to M. How much water flowed through this drain, and whether the tile materially increased it, wo have no means of knowing. The pond N is between ten and twenty rods, and M five rods, from the division line. Below these to the north, on plaintiff’s land, are a number of small ponds and the large one previously mentioned.

[739]*739

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

Related

Board of Supervisors v. Board of Supervisors
241 N.W. 14 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1932)
Pascal v. Donahue
170 Iowa 315 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1915)
Boise Development Co. v. Idaho Trust & Savings Bank, Ltd.
133 P. 916 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1913)
Lyon v. Board of Supervisors
136 N.W. 324 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Wirds v. VierKandt
108 N.W. 108 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Keck v. Venghause
103 N.W. 773 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 N.W. 152, 126 Iowa 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plagge-v-mensing-iowa-1905.