39 Ind. 282 | Ind. | 1872
This was an action brought by Tate against the City of Indianapolis, to recover damages for an alleged overflow of his premises by reason of a defective sewer.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was the owner of, and in possession of, certain real estate in said city; that he had erected thereon a large planing mill, and door and sash factory, while on the rear part thereof he had erected three large drying houses, in which he dried or seasoned lumber used in the factory; that the common council had established and constructed a system of drainage and sewerage by which all the water north of Washington street, east of Pennsylvania to East street, and as far north as the limits of
The second paragraph is substantially the same as the first, only more particularly setting forth the alleged injuries, and the manner of their occurrence.
The defendant pleaded the general denial and several other paragraphs of answer, which need not be further noticed. There was a trial by jury, and a general verdict for the plaintiff, and answers to interrogatories, on which, notwithstanding a motion by the defendant for a new trial, the court rendered final judgment for the plaintiff!
The only error assigned in this court is the refusal of the common pleas to grant a new trial.
This case is like the case of The City of Indianapolis v. Lawyer, 38 Ind. 348, except that in that case there was a demurrer to the evidence, and in this the question is upon the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict of the jury.
The questions in the two cases are the same, and they must be decided in the same way.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.