Court Opinion

ID: 9831525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:09:35.450938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.483283
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the original opinion appear inaccuracies of statement of plaintiff in error’s cross-action, complained of by him. A ground of recovery was not pleaded to be “that there was failure to fully complete the construction of the levee improvements,” nor “on account of constructing the improvements somewhat differently from the adopted plan.” The cross-action sought compensation by way of damages for injury to plaintiff in error’s “Hopkins county land,” located across the Sulphur river from the levee district, in consequence of alleged undue and unnatural overflow of waters which was the immediate result of the following, among other causes, viz.:
“In the engineering and construction of this district levee improvement the waters of Brush Creek were diverted from its natural channel by means of the district levee crossing same directly and at right angles with such creek to the south and to Sulphur River for a distance of two miles from such channel, and such levee ex*767tending two miles north, of such creek channel to the foot-hills.”
' The only ruling applicable to the cross-action is that there was no error in holding it barred by the statute of limitations.