Court Opinion

ID: 9866338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 04:10:26.016037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:20:37.295063
License: Public Domain

*80
“On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant in its motion for rehearing again strenuously insists that its construction and maintenance of the new concrete culvert was in direct compliance with Section 9953, Revised Statutes' 1919. We have again considered this question, and it is again our conclusion that the defendant cannot justify its conduct in, this case under the statute above mentioned. Under this statute, so far as we are here concerned, the railroad company is required to maintain suitable openings through its right of way and roadbed so as to afford sufficient outlet to drain and carry off the water, including the surface water, wherever the construction of the railroad embankment makes same necessary. That cannot be construed to be a justification for changing the course of a natural stream so as to deposit the waters against and upon the property of plaintiff. Such is not ‘a draining or carrying off of the water, ’ as the statute requires.
“The petition charges, and there is substantial evidence tending to prove, that the defendant railroad company maintained this culvert and thereby diverted from its natural channel the water of a natural stream and turned the water of this stream, together with a lot of surface water which was collected in the ditches along the dump of the right of way, in a concentrated flow and volume upon the defendant’s'public highway.
“It is also again urged that the petition does not state a cause of action. As we have pointed out in the opinion, the petition alleges that the defendant ‘during the months of March, April and May, 1920, by the means and in the manner aforesaid, wrongfully caused the waters of said stream to be diverted from its natural, course and channel, and wrongfully caused large quantities of said surface water to be collected in said artificial ditches and drains, and wrongfully caused said waters from both said stream and said ditches to be precipitated through said second larger culvert of said defendant, and cast in a concentrated volume and stream, with great force, against, upon and over the right of way and road*81bed of the plaintiff, resulting in great damage and injury to the same, by washing large gullies and ditches therein and across the same, and by carrying off and washing away the materials with which said road was constructed.’ The petition states a cause of action and, we think, was well supported by the evidence.
“Finally, our attention is called to the case of Wabash Ry. Co. v. Elliott, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 406, 67 L. Ed. 743, decided in the Supreme Court of the United States April 9, 1923, and it is insisted that under that ruling’ the judgment here cannot be allowed to stand against the defendant railroad company. . We have examined this opinion of our highest court and find that this decision re-iterates what was held in Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, 65 L. Ed. 1087; that is, that — 'the right of actions arising* out of acts or omissions occurring’ in the course of the Federal control of a railroad should be against the Director General, and not the company owning the road.’ The cause of action in the instant case arises out of the acts on the part of defendant railroad company after this corporation had again come into possession of its property by maintaining the culvert and causing the diversion of the stream and the damages at a time after the Federal Government had ceased its control over the property. Clearly, the case just decided by the Supreme Court of the United States has no bearing on the issues before us.
“With the concurrence of the other judges, the motion for rehearing is overruled.”
For the reasons stated, our writ should be quashed,which is accordingly done.
Graves, concurs; James T. Blair, P. J., and Ragland, J., concur in result.