Novotny v. Danforth

Citations

• 9 S.D. 301
• 68 N.W. 749
• 1896 S.D. LEXIS 160

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action for damages to plaintiff’s building by an excavation by an adjoining landowner, it may be shown on cross examination of plaintiff that the damages were in fact caused by an excavation directed by plaintiff, though the fact of such excavation was not brought out on direct examination, as such matter goes to disprove plaintiff’s cause of action.</p> <p>2. The complaint alleged that the damage to plaintiff’s building was caused by the negligent excavation by defendants of land “adjacent” to plaintiff’s land. Held, that recovery could not be 'had from the defendant contractor, on the theory that the fall of plaintiff’s wall was caused by his negligence in excavating “beneath” plaintiff’s wall, to lower plaintiff’s foundation, under a contract with plaintiff.</p> <p>3. Officers of a corporation were authorized to convey the W. % of the E. i of lots 10 and 11. The officers, after so describing the land, added, without authority, a specific description by metes and bounds, which they supposed covered the same property. Held, that the first description prevailed.</p> <p>4. Comp. Laws, Sec. 2784, requiring adjoining landowners to give reasonable notice to each other of intended excavations, does not require such notice to be given where the adjoining owner has, in fact, knowledge of the intended excavation.</p>