Case Name: C. L. BURT, W. W. NUSBAUM and F. G. PICKETT, Commissioners of DRAINAGE DISTRICT No. 1 OF CANYON COUNTY, Respondents, v. W. S. STUART and BERTHA M. E. PATTON, Appellants
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1920-06-11
Citations: 33 Idaho 138
Docket Number: 
Parties: C. L. BURT, W. W. NUSBAUM and F. G. PICKETT, Commissioners of DRAINAGE DISTRICT No. 1 OF CANYON COUNTY, Respondents, v. W. S. STUART and BERTHA M. E. PATTON, Appellants.
Judges: Morgan, C, J., and Budge, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 138–140

Head Matter:
(June 11, 1920.)
C. L. BURT, W. W. NUSBAUM and F. G. PICKETT, Commissioners of DRAINAGE DISTRICT No. 1 OF CANYON COUNTY, Respondents, v. W. S. STUART and BERTHA M. E. PATTON, Appellants.
[190 Pac. 713.]
Drainage — Assessment of Benefits — Damages — Sufficiency of Evidence.
On an appeal in a proceeding under tlie drainage statute, as on otter appeals, this court will pot disturb the verdict of a jury or the judgment of a trial court because of conflict in the evidence where there is sufficient proof, if uncontradicted, to sustain it.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
Proceeding to assess benefits and damages in drainage district.
Affirmed.
J. M. Thompson and W. A. Stone, for Appellants, cite no authorities.
Harry S. Kessler, for Respondents.
“Where the testimony in such a ease is conflicting, and from it reasonable men might draw different conclusions, since there is evidence to support both theories of the case, the judgment of the trial Court will not be disturbed.” (iJones v. Yanausdeln, 28 Ida. 743, 156 Pac. 615; Little v. Little, 29 Ida. 292, 158 Pac. 559; Hufton v. Hufton, 25 Ida. 96, 136 Pac. 605.)
Even if it could be construed as an equity case, this court has but recently held in the case of Davenport v. Burke, 30 Ida. 599, 167 Pae. 481, that in a suit in equity as well as in an action at law a finding of fact made by the trial judge, who has had the benefit of observing the demeanor of witnesses upon the stand and of listening to their testimony, will not be disturbed because of conflict. (McDaniel v. Mary-gold, 2 Iowa, 500, 65 Am. Dee. 786.)

Opinion:
MCCARTHY, District Judge.
The only question before this court is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury assessing benefits to the lands of appellants, and assessing the damages of appellant W. S. Stuart.
The general rule is that this court will not disturb the verdict of a jury or the judgment of a trial court because of conflict in the evidence when there is sufficient proof, if uncontradicted, to sustain it. (Raft River Land & Livestock Co. v. Laird, 30 Ida. 804, 168 Pac. 1074.)
Counsel for appellants contend that this rule does not apply to this proceeding because C. S., sec. 4515, provides that an appeal in a drainage case shall bring before the supreme court the propriety and justness of the amount of damages or assessments of benefits. We see nothing in this language to take such Cases out of the general rule.
Applying the general rale to the evidence, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed and costs are awarded to respondents.
Morgan, C, J., and Budge, J., concur.