Rath v. Zembleman

68 N.W. 488, 49 Neb. 351, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 744
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 7, 1896
DocketNo. 6811
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 68 N.W. 488 (Rath v. Zembleman) 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
Rath v. Zembleman, 68 N.W. 488, 49 Neb. 351, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 744 (Neb. 1896).

Opinion

Ryan, C.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in error for the recovery of damages which he alleged he had sustained by the defendant draining a pond in such a manner that the water therefrom ran across the premises of the plaintiff. Between the drained land and that alleged to have been injured there was a meandering draw of the length of between three and four miles. After a rainfall the flowage of water through this draw, it was alleged, was increased to and through the plaintiff’s land, whereby on one occasion his hay in such draw was destroyed. For its value this action was brought before a justice of the peace of Fillmore county, from whose judgment there was an appeal to the district court, wherein there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant.

On the trial it was admitted by the plaintiff, in open court, that the draw through which the water flowed from the defendant’s land to and across plaintiff’s, was a natural waterway running from Clay county, and that it had been such ever since plaintiff had occupied his premises, and that the waters from that country were drained through this ravine or draw and ran down through plaintiff’s land. In view of the holdings of this court since the trial of this case, announced in Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. Peterson, 41 Neb., 897, Morrissey v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 38 Neb., 406, Lincoln & B. H. R. Co. v. Sutherland, 44 Neb., 526, City of Beatrice v. Leary, 45 Neb., 149, and Jacobson v. Van Boening, 48 Neb., 80, the plaintiff in no event could have recovered damages in the face of his admissions as to the flowage and the character of the waterway which it followed. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

Affirmed.

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

Related

Pontifical College v. Kleeli
5 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 241 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division, 1907)
Aldritt v. Fleischauer
70 L.R.A. 301 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1905)
Baldwin v. Ohio Township
67 L.R.A. 642 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1904)
Todd v. York County
66 L.R.A. 561 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 N.W. 488, 49 Neb. 351, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rath-v-zembleman-neb-1896.