In this action plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from prosecuting an inverse condemnation action for alleged damages to their properties in the city of Omaha, Nebraska. Judgment was for defendants. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
The defendants are the owners of two buildings on 19th Street between Farnam and Harney Streets in Omaha. The block directly to the east between 19th and 18th Streets was acquired by the Omaha-Douglаs Public Building Commission created under Chapter 23, article 26, R. R. S. 1943. Defendants alleged that in building on the block acquired by the defendant commission, the sanitаry sewer service running from their buildings to a sewer on 19th Street was disrupted and destroyed. Defendants filed an inverse condemnation action under sections 76-705 et seq., R. R. S. 1943, for the purpose of ascertaining and recovering damages. Injunction having been denied, plaintiffs appeal. They assign as error the finding that inverse condemnation is a proper remedy and that the judgment is not supported by the evidence.
*325
Plaintiffs assert that defendants had no vested rights in the 19th Street sewer or in its use. Under Nebraska law a city of the metropolitan class may establish sewer districts, regulаte the construction, repair, and use of the sewers, provide penalties for their injury and obstruction, issue permits for connections аnd require property owners to make such connections at their own expense, fix charges for use of the sewage system, and levy special assessments. See Chapter 14, article 3, R. R. S. 1943. Connections or laterals necessarily start in the property of the private owner, extend through or across such property, and into the public streets or alleys to the sewer mains constructed by the sewer districts. Property owners do not ordinarily acquire vested interests in the sewer mains or in their use in a given location or condition, but it is the duty of the city to keеp them in repair and in useable condition except in the face of extraordinary or unusual conditions beyond its control and it may аssess penalties for damage or obstruction of the sewers. Although an abutting owner does not have a vested interest in the location оf a street or highway in a given location, or in its maintenance in a given condition, it is generally held that he is entitled to compensation if ingrеss and egress to the street is unreasonably restricted or if the street is vacated. See W.E.W. Truck Lines, Inc. v. State,
Plaintiffs contend that an inverse condemnation action cannot lie because the Omaha-Douglas Public Building Commission did not have the power of condemnation. This assertion is erroneous. See § 23-2604 (1) and (4), R. R. S. 1943. It is also urged that it will not lie except in instances where a condemnation action by reason of the taking of property was permissible. The commission had the power of condemnation and it may be exercised whenever property is damaged for public use. An actual taking of property is not required. See, Armbruster v. Stanton-Pilger Drаinage Dist.,
It is also asserted that an inverse condemnation action will not lie because defendants could have sued in tort for the damage done. They cite Nemaha Valley Drainage Dist. v. Marconnit,
On review of the evidence submitted, we find that it is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the District Court. “Actiоns in equity on appeal to the Supreme Court are triable de novo, subject, however, to the rule that when credible evidence оn material questions of fact is in irreconcilable conflict this court will, in determining the weight of the evidence, consider the fact that the triаl court observed the witnesses and their manner of testifying, and must have accepted one version of the facts rather than the opposite.” Pinney v. Hill,
*328 The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.