{
  "id": 8721805,
  "name": "Horn v. Bratton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Horn v. Bratton",
  "decision_date": "1949-01-17",
  "docket_number": "4-8692",
  "first_page": "413",
  "last_page": "416",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 Ark. 413"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "216 S.W.2d 794"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 6214,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "sha256": "7b07cc674a74b11a0bd53886eae1662215843f486cb0d8e7b98a5dea1aad6540",
    "simhash": "1:0df42c5964402097",
    "word_count": 1129
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:26.096089+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Horn v. Bratton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellant is the owner of the S% of the Sy2 of the SW% of Sec. 8, T. 14 N., R. 15 W., and ap-pellee is the owner of the of the NW^L of Sec. 17, T. 14 N., R. 15 W. The tract last described joins and is south of the former.\nFor many years a public road ran between these tracts of land, which was abandoned and its use as a road discontinued when Highway No. 65 was constructed, which runs along the east line of both tracts.\nAppellant, the plaintiff below, filed a complaint in which he alleged that appellee \u201chas a fence built on the line between his said lands and this plaintiff\u2019s land and there is a large field of fertile and productive land lying, due south of plaintiff\u2019s field and extending west from U. S. Highway No. 65 to the foot of a steep mountain, the northwest corner of said field being the full extension of the old wagon road to the foot of said mountain and divided from the southwest corner of plaintiff\u2019s field only by the old wagon road.\n\u201cSome 22 rods, or about 121 yards south of said corners at the end of said old road, there is a hollow which runs down the steep mountain slope with a wide drainage, the waters from which during heavy rains have for all time past emptied into and run through the fields and lands of the defendant herein to the highway ditch and thence back to the mouth of the old road where there is a culvert under the Highway 65 dump and road bed and thence into Cove Creek.\u201d\nThat the defendant has filled up said hollow 22 rods south of plaintiff\u2019s field, constructing an embankment of rock and dirt across said hollow higher than the natural level of the lands on each side of said hollow, and has cut a ditch along the foot of the mountain for a distance of 22 rods, throwing both the dirt and rocks to the lower side of said ditch, thereby turning all the surface water from said hollow off of defendant\u2019s field and throwing it onto the plaintiff\u2019s land. It was alleged that if defendant is permitted to turn the water from his hollow as he is attempting to do, it will completely destroy the road and will overflow the plaintiff\u2019s field and do him irreparable damage every time there is a flood or heavy rain, and the lower part of plaintiff\u2019s field will he overflowed.\nWherefore it was prayed that defendant he permanently restrained from turning the water from his land onto the plaintiff\u2019s land and that a mandatory injunction issue requiring the defendant to fill the ditch made by him.\nIn his answer appellee denied that there was an extensive hollow south of plaintiff\u2019s southwest corner, and denied \u201cthat drainage runs through his fields and back up to the mouth of the old road and across any culvert on U. S. Highway 65 near the lands of this plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint.\u201d The answer denied that any diversion of surface water which appellee has made will overflow the road at all or overflow the plaintiff\u2019s field or otherwise damage him.\nIt appears from this statement of the issues raised by the complaint and answer that the complaint presents the definite question of fact, whether appellee has impounded and diverted water causing appellant\u2019s land to overflow and he damaged. Testimony was offered upon this issue and the complaint was dismissed as being without equity, thus reflecting the finding that appellee\u2019s action had occasioned appellant no damage. As this finding does not appear to be contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, the decree must be affirmed.\nAppellant\u2019s testimony consists principally of opinions expressed that at some future time appellant\u2019s land may be damaged, but it is conceded that this anticipated damage has not yet occurred.\nAppellee\u2019s testimony is to the effect that the configuration of the land is such that appellee\u2019s dam and ditch have not and will not impound and cast water upon appellant\u2019s land.\nAppellee constructed a pond on his land which appears to have caused some apprehension as to its drainage to appellant\u2019s land. This pond was constructed under the supervision of a representative of the Federal Soil Conservation Service, who has had ten years\u2019 experience in that service. This witness testified that he made a survey of the spillway running north of the pond to the old road bed, and as to the disposition of the water which it impounded and he testified as follows:\n\u201cQ. The spillway, I believe, runs north of the pond to an old road bed? A. Yes, sir. Q. From there where would the water be carried? A. From the old road to the highway ditch. Q. Is that roadway a ditch? A. We would call it a ditch. Q. Tell the court whether that ditch would be sufficient to carry all that water coming down from the spillway. A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell the court whether or not that would be based on the heaviest rain in this county? A. Based on the heaviest rain that has fallen in 50 years. Q. Based on an estimate of the largest rain that has fallen in 50 years? A. Yes, sir.\u201d\nOn his cross-examination the witness was asked:\n\u201cQ. In the natural flow, where would that water naturally flow? A. Across the field. Q. What field. A. Tony Bratton\u2019s''field. (Bratton is the appellee.) Q. Would it have had a tendency to flow toward any of the Horn land or the old road? A. No. Q. Isn\u2019t it a fact or had you observed, Mr. Johnson, that over a period of years that water had worn a ditch over the Tony Brat-ton land and went on out to the highway 65, wasn\u2019t that its natural tendency at the time? A. It was. Q. You are basing your opinion on the largest rainfall in 50 years, do you have a record of that? A. We have figures over at the office.\u201d\nAppellant does not testify nor offer proof to show that appellee has yet cast any water on his land, but appellant\u2019s apprehension is that this will occur in case of excessive rainfall. But this appears to .be surmise and conjecture and the positive testimony is to the effect that appellant has not yet suffered any damage as a result of appellee\u2019s acts complained of.\n.The court, therefore, properly dismissed the complaint as being without equity and that decree is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. F. Reeves and N. J. Henley, for appellant.",
      "Wm. T. Mills and Opie Rogers, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Horn v. Bratton.\n4-8692\n216 S. W. 2d 794\nOpinion delivered January 17, 1949.\nW. F. Reeves and N. J. Henley, for appellant.\nWm. T. Mills and Opie Rogers, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0413-01",
  "first_page_order": 451,
  "last_page_order": 454
}