Case Name: ANNIE JOHNSON et al., Respondents, v. INTER-RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, a Public Corporation, Appellant
Court: Springfield Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1924-01-07
Citations: 216 Mo. App. 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANNIE JOHNSON et al., Respondents, v. INTER-RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, a Public Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: Cox, P. J., and Bradley, J., concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 216
Pages: 178–180

Head Matter:
ANNIE JOHNSON et al., Respondents, v. INTER-RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, a Public Corporation, Appellant.
In the Springfield Court of Appeals,
January 7, 1924.
DRAINS: District Liable for Injuries to Land Outside District by Obstructing Natural Watercourse. A drainage district may be sued for damage to land outside the district resulting from obstruction by its improvements of a natural watercourse diverting water therefrom.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Butler County. — How. Almon Ing, Judge.
Affirmed and certified to Supreme Court.
Oliver & Oliver for appellant.
Welker <& Mulloy for respondents.

Opinion:
FARRINGTON, J.
This is a suit by the owners of a lot situated in the eastern part of Poplar Bluff, Missouri, to recover damages against the defendant on account of its alleged construction of a levee and borrow-pit which it is charged in the petition diverted the waters of a water way thereby causing plaintiff's land to be overflowed. A judgment for $1500 was recovered in the trial court and defendant brings its appeal to this court.
The same act of defendant was brought before this court in the case of Schalk v. Inter-River Drainage District, 226 S. W. 277, and Lee v. Inter-River Drainage District, 226 S. W. 280. Much of the same evidence is contained in this record as was contained in the former two cases. In those cases we held that there was evidence upon which could be based a finding that a natural water-way had been obstructed and the wmter diverted" therefrom. And, we further held that one whose property or land lay outside of the drainage district and to which was caused damage might sue and recover for such damage under the constitutional provision that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. We followed the same holding in the case of Greenwell v. Wills & Sons, 210 Mo. App. 651, 239 S. W. 578.
Again, in the case of Noble, Sigler et al., v. Inter-River Drainage District, an opinion has been prepared by Bradley, J., and is handed down with this opinion, adhering to our former ruling in the Schalk, Lee and Greenwell cases and certifying the Noble-Sigler case to the Supreme Court as being in conflict with the case of Arnold v. Worth County Drainage District, 234 S. W. 349, an opinion by the Kansas City Court of Appeals.
Without going into detail of the evidence in this ease, we find that there is evidence upon which a trier of the fact could find that the defendant fiad diveited tfie waters of Black River in tfie construction of its drainage project so as to damage plaintiffs ' land, and we fiold tfiat tfie Inter-River Drainage District may be sued by these plaintiffs whose land is damaged by tfie overflow, such land not lying or being within tfie drainage district, and tfie damage necessarily resulting from tfie construction of the levee and borrow-pit. We, therefore, affirm tfie judgment, but as tfie result of this opinion is in conflict with tfie case of Arnold v. Worth County Drainage District, 234 S. W. 349, tfie cause is certified to tfie Supreme Court for final determination.
Cox, P. J., and Bradley, J., concur.