Court Opinion

ID: 9693509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:45:52.477379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:47.698300
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed February 2, 1954:
Currie, J.
(on motion for rehearing). Plaintiffs, in their brief filed in support of their motion for rehearing, maintain that the private ditch referred to in the easement agreement as facilitating “the flow of water accumulating about the buildings on said [the plaintiffs’] farm into said storm sewer” served a public purpose. We have carefully reread the record, and can find nothing therein which impugns the accuracy of the following statement contained in our original opinion (ante, p. 300) :
“There is no evidence in the record that such shallow ditch constituted an integral part of the WPA project or performed any function other than that stated in the easement agreement.”
Correction should be made, however, of a misstatement occurring at the top of page 297 in the statement of facts. The grant of easement did not cover the portion of the underground sewer lying within the highway limits of Highway S but only that part “between the easterly bank of Duncan creek and County Trunk Highway ‘S.’ ” The southerly boundary of the strip of plaintiffs’ farm covered by the easement was the southerly boundary of such farm and the northerly boundary of such strip was a continuation of the north line of Highway S extended westerly to the creek. The record is silent as to there being any curve in Highway S between Highway 53 westerly to Duncan creek, but apparently Highway S must have turned either to the south or north so as to make it necessary to obtain the easement for *306bthat part of the underground sewer extending beyond the limits of the highway, although the evidence established that the east end of such sewer was in the north ditch line of the highway.
By the Court. — Motion for rehearing denied with $25 costs.