{
  "id": 1447024,
  "name": "Drainage District No. 16 of Mississippi County v. Rouse",
  "name_abbreviation": "Drainage District No. 16 v. Rouse",
  "decision_date": "1942-02-02",
  "docket_number": "4-6592",
  "first_page": "723",
  "last_page": "726",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ark. 723"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "158 S.W.2d 261"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5310,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.314058464412404
    },
    "sha256": "e8b3ceef7ee1b06e78b200f19f5c5b141394825e0756bd4db72c80544b90b1a8",
    "simhash": "1:69322ce15a106cdf",
    "word_count": 948
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:45.785345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Drainage District No. 16 of Mississippi County v. Rouse."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nIn the summer of 1939, Drainage District. No. 16 of Mississippi county, Arkansas, redredged its ditches. One of these was a lateral ditch referred to as ditch No. 7. The district redug the bottom of this ditch to a width of 20 feet for a mile. The width was then reduced to 16 feet for the next half-mile, and further reduced to 12 feet for the next mile, and finally narrowed to an eight-foot bottom for the remainder of the distance.\nAppellee purchased a 40-acre tract of land in 1932. Ditch No. 7 was its eastern boundary. A county road ran east and west along his south boundary line. He built a house and barn in the northeast corner of his field near the ditch and facing it and used a road on the old dump of the ditch as a means of ingress and egress to the county road.\nThe redigging of ditch No. 7 was a drag-line job, and after a considerable portion of it had been dug, appellee filed suit to enjoin the enlargement of the ditch, its bottom through appellee\u2019s land having been widened from 16 to 20 feet. He obtained a restraining order enjoining the district \u201cfrom throwing-on or piling dirt upon plaintiff\u2019s lands and crops growing thereon and plaintiff\u2019s houses.\u201d In the complaint upon which this order was made he prayed judgment for damages in the sum of $600.\nThe machine employed was a dry-line model, operating a crane not long enough to place the earth, as it was removed, on the opposite side of the ditch, so the earth was piled along the right-of-way on the side where the machine was being operated. Some of the earth was thrown beyond the right-of-way upon appellee\u2019s cotton crop.\nThe practice was that the clrag-line operator would apply a drag-line finish, that is, he would level and smooth the dump with the dipper used in excavating. The land owner could then cultivate the dump, and many farmers cultivated to the edge of the ditch.\nAfter the injunction was obtained the district ceased spreading the earth and 'began piling it in a ridge. There is a conflict as to the width of the dump, and as to the height of the ridge, and as to the extent to which earth had been thrown on appellee\u2019s land and the damage to his crop. The testimony was also conflicting as to whether the entire work through appellee\u2019s land had resulted in damage or in benefit to the land. Some witnesses testified that the land had been damaged as much as $600; others said that the value of the land had been enhanced. The court found: \u201cThat this is an action for injunction and for damages growing out of an alleged trespass on the lands of the plaintiff; that the defendants did commit a trespass upon the lands of the plaintiff by spreading the dirt from the redug ditch, lying just east of his land, from the south line of his land northward for a distance of 700 feet and at a width of from 45% to 50% feet; that the district did not commit trespass when it stopped building the larger levee toward the northward and moved over and placed the dirt on its own right-of:w\u00e1y, and in building the smaller levee from about opposite the north end of the larger levee on to the north line of plaintiff\u2019s land; that plaintiff is entitled to damages against the defendants in spreading the dirt over on his land from his south line northward for 700 feet, as herein-before specified, and for damage to plaintiff\u2019s growing crop, in the sum of $375.\u201d\nUpon this finding judgment was rendered for appellee in the sum of $375, from which decree is this appeal.\nThis suit offends the theory upon which drainage districts are organized and their cost assessed against the lands lying within a district. The theory of the law is that these ditches enhance the value of the land, and against this enhanced value, or betterment, as it is called, assessments are levied to pay the construction cost. Provision is made in the law for the maintenance of these ditches, and for the assessment of additional benefits to provide funds for that purpose.\nIn the course of time these ditches fill up, and must be r\u00e9dredged, and that is what happen\u00e9d here. But it does not appear that the district levied additional assessments to pay the cost of the redredging. Certainly, the district was not trying to damage appellee\u2019s land, but to benefit it, and we think the preponderance of the testimony shows this was done. The district would have spread the earth as the ditch was cleaned out and enlarged through appellee\u2019s land, as other landowners preferred, but when appellee objected and enjoined the district he had his choice, and thereafter the earth was piled in ridges and not spread out. We think the preponderance of the testimony shows that the benefits to appellee\u2019s land exceeded the damage done, and he, therefore, has no cause of action on that account.\nIt appears, however, that the district covered up some of appellee\u2019s cotton, and for this we think he should be paid. Appellee testified that the district covered up about an acre of his cotton, which would have produced a bale, worth $50, and judgment for that amount will be awarded him, and the judgment appealed from will be reduced to that amount.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shane do Fendler, for appellant.",
      "Claude F. Cooper and T. J. Crowder, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Drainage District No. 16 of Mississippi County v. Rouse.\n4-6592\n158 S. W. 2d 261\nOpinion delivered February 2, 1942.\nShane do Fendler, for appellant.\nClaude F. Cooper and T. J. Crowder, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0723-01",
  "first_page_order": 741,
  "last_page_order": 744
}