Title: Timmons v. Clayton

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

259 S.W.2d 501 (1953) TIMMONS v. CLAYTON. No. 5-124. Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 22, 1953. *502 E. H. Timmons, Morrilton, for appellant. Phillip H. Loh, III, Morrilton, for appellee. McFADDIN, Justice. Appellant and appellee own adjoining lands within the city limits of Morrilton; appellant's tract of about two acres lies north of appellee's property, and the slope of the surface is from north to south. The decisive question on this appeal is whether previous litigation between the same parties is res judicata of the principal issue in this litigation. In 1951, appellant filed suit in Chancery, claiming appellee was obstructing Timmons Street, which was on the south side of appellant's land and the north side of appellees's land. By cross-complaint, appellee sought damages, claiming that appellant had: After the conclusion of the previous litigation, Timmons Street was graded by the City of Morrilton, and a drainage ditch on either side of the street was designed to carry the surface water easterly about three hundred feet into the ditch alongside State Highway No. 9. Then appellee constructed a terrace near his north line and across the swale or depression that the surface drainage had followed over his land. When appellee constructed this terrace, appellant filed the present suit, alleging that appellee had constructed a dam over a natural water course, and that the effect of appellee's construction was to cause the waters to flood Timmons Street. Appellant alleged that the ditch through appellee's lands was a "natural water course", as distinguished from a depression or swale for the flowing of surface water. The prayer of the appellant's present complaint was for a "* * * mandatory injunction compelling defendant to remove the dam and levee from across the stream * * *." To this complaint, appellee pleaded inter aliathat the previous litigation between the parties was res judicata, because in the previous litigation, the Court found that the drainage ditch was for surface water, and was not a natural water course. After a patient hearing, the Trial Court held: (a) that the previous litigation had determined that the waters were surface waters; and (b) that appellant had shown no damage. The Chancellor rendered a written opinion, from which we quote: "The question as to the type of water involved here was directly involved in the previous suit, where it was raised in the pleadings, made the subject of proof, was the subject of a finding by the court which was used as the basis for that part of the decree pertaining to Plaintiff having impounded and diverted the water in question. * * * We conclude that the trial court was correct. In the previous litigation, appellant had been happy with the finding that the only water he was impounding was course when it reached the adjoining lands of the appellee. The appellant cannot thus, blow hot and cold. Here we are dealing only with surface water.[1] The rule as to the blocking of surface water iri an urban location is stated in Levy v. Nash, 87 Ark. 41, 112 S.W. 173, 174; 20 L.R.A.,N.S, 155: In areas outside urban centers, a lower proprietor may protect himself from surface water by erecting a levee where that is the practical method of protecting his land from surface water, and where in so constructing the levee he acts in good faith and is free of negligence. Baker v. Allen, 66 Ark. 271, 50 S.W. 511; Jackson v. Keller, 95 Ark. 242, 129 S.W. 296; Honey v. Bcrtig Co., 202 Ark. 370, 150 S.W.2d 214; and Brasko v. Prislovsky, 207 Ark. 1034, 183 S.W.2d 925. Since (a) appellant in this litigation with the appellee is bound by the previous decision that the water here involved is surface water; and since (b) appellee in building his terrace to fend off the surface water is not shown to have acted negligently, or in bad faith, it therefore follows that the decree herein is in all things affirmed. [1] In 12 A.L.R.2d 1338, there is an Annotation entitled: "Liability, as regards surface water. Now he wants to claim that the same ditch which carried surface water through his land, became a natural water