Case Name: William O. Jarman, appellee, v. Nebraska Gas & Electric Company, appellant
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1923-04-10
Citations: 110 Neb. 141
Docket Number: No. 22315
Parties: William O. Jarman, appellee, v. Nebraska Gas & Electric Company, appellant.
Judges: Heard before Morrissey, C. J., Aldrich and Good, JJ., Begley and Button, District Judges.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
William O. Jarman, appellee, v. Nebraska Gas & Electric Company, appellant.
Filed April 10, 1923.
No. 22315.
1. Case Followed. This case is ruled by the law as stated in McKee v. Nebraska Gas <£ Electric Co., ante, p. 137.
2. Instructions examined and approved.
Appeal from the district court for Nance county: A. M. Post, Judge.
Affirmed.
J. W. Rice and G. II. Kelsey, for appellant.
Y. D. Burch and G. N. Aniderson, contra.
Heard before Morrissey, C. J., Aldrich and Good, JJ., Begley and Button, District Judges.

Opinion:
Begley, District Judge.
This is a companion case to McKee v. Nebraska Gas & Electric Co., ante, p. 137. Both actions arise from the same set of facts and counsel in both are identical, and therefore the law as stated in the case of McKee v. Nebraska, Gas & Electric Co., is decisive of the errors alleged in this case.
This case differs in one particular, in that this plaintiff is the owner of land joining the McKee land on the north, and when the Cedar river changed its course as a result of the act of defendant, it ceased to flow past tiie west side of plaintiff's land, but flowed through the milirace and joined the regular channel of the stream at a point directly west of the southwest comer of plaintiff's land, and he alleged that, as a result of such change, sand-bars formed in the unused channel to the west of his land, and when the river rose to flood stage the waters Avere thereby forced out of the old channel and onto his land.
The court, by proper instructions, submitted to the jury the question as to whether the'flooding of plaintiff's land was caused by the Avrongful act of defendant, and the amount of damages, if any, caused thereby. Appellant complains of the giving of instructions Nos. 8, 9, and 10, by the court. We have examined these instructions and find they correctly state the law.
Affirmed.