DocketNumber: Sac. No. 31
Citation Numbers: 5 Cal. Unrep. 344, 44 P. 801
Judges: Britt
Filed Date: 5/1/1896
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Defendant Nelson is a member of the board of supervisors of Butte county and ex-officio road commissioner in and for his supervisor district. Under the direction of said board, it is his duty to take charge of the highways in his district, keep them clear from obstructions and in good repair, and employ the help necessary for that purpose: Pol. Code, secs. 2641, 2645. Defendant Richardson is employed by Nelson in caring for the highways of the district, and it is admitted that in the matters laid to their charge here they acted officially, and under the instructions of the board of supervisors. There is a highway under the superintendency of said Nelson running from east to west along the line between sections 10 and 15 of a certain congressional township, which highway has existed as such for more than five years, regularly laid out and constructed by order of said board. It occupies a strip of land four rods in width along the boundary between said sections, two rods in each section, it seems; and the roadway or traveled portion thereof has been graded and elevated about eighteen inches above the surface of the surrounding soil, this being necessary to its use during the rainy season. Such elevation was effected by taking the earth from either side of the roadway, and within said strip four rods wide, leaving upon each side of the roadway a depression or gutter lower than the adjacent surfaces. The country for some miles around slopes gently from northeast to southwest. At the lowest point on said section line is a culvert through and under said roadway for
Upon the papers before it, the court might fairly have found the facts to be as we have stated; and we think they warranted its action dissolving the injunction. Plaintiff invokes the doctrine, which we have no inclination to deny, that highway officers may not collect in artificial channels mere surface water precipitated by rain over large districts, and throw it upon the property of another (Conniff v. San Francisco, 67 Cal. 49, 7 Pac. 41; Gould on Waters, secs. 261, 272) ; but here the plaintiff does not claim that either the gutters along the sides of the highway or the culvert have the effect to collect surface water in its natural flow in such manner as to occasion any injury to her. On the contrary, it clearly appears from her complaint that the surface water from the lands above her own would not reach said culvert in any harmful quantity but for the system of artificial ditches constructed for the more rapid drainage of their lands by her neighbors. Defendants are not shown to be in any way responsible for the ditch system which, in point of time, followed the construction of the highway. To restrain the water brought down “through the medium of said system of artificial ditc&es” (the phrase of the complaint) from reaching her land, plaintiff claims, virtually, that she may use the roadway as a dam, closing up the inlet to the culvert to make the stoppage effectual, to the impairment of the highway and hindrance of public travel. If a herd of cattle had been unlawfully turned loose, so that, by traversing the highway, they might enter on her land, we suppose that she would have no right to impound them in the road, or to enjoin the road commissioner from removing structures she might erect there for that purpose, and that the responsibility for the damage the cattle might do would be upon the persons who set them at large, and not upon the roadmaster. The case put seems not much different from the ease at bar. “If the owner of the upper ground wrongfully direct an unnatural quantity of water upon the ground of a lower neighbor, by collecting several streams together, and discharging them at one place,
We concur: Sear Is, C.; Haynes, C.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the order appealed from is affirmed.