Chapman v. Copeland

Citations

• 55 Miss. 476

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice. Instructions conflicting.</p> <p>Where the evidence in a case is very conflicting, it is especially important that there should be no conflict in the instructions.</p> <p>2. Water-course. Damage by diversion. Instruction.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for the flowage of the plaintiff’s land, caused by the diversion of the water of a creek from its natural course through a. ■ ditch cut by the defendant, it is error to instruct the jury to find for the-defendant, unless the plaintiff has sustained damage “in amount appreciable- and ascertainable by evidence to the satisfaction of the jury.” This charge,, in requiring the plaintiff to prove special damages in order to a recovery,, denies him the right to recover for nominal damages.</p> <p>3. Same. Damage to land. Diversion of water before plaintiff ’ s pur chase.</p> <p>O. cut a ditch which diverted the water of a certain creek from its natural' course through his land onto the land of L.- A year afterwards J. O. purchased L.’s land, and after being in possession two years brought an action against O. to recover damages for the flowage of his land, caused by the ditch. The latter, in his defense, claimed that he was not liable if no damage resulted, from any act of his done after J. O. purchased the land. Held, that if J. 0-suffered damage from the ditch after his purchase, he was entitled to recover,, whether O. did anything to the ditch after J. O.’s purchase or not.</p>