The respondents are the owners of a brick building located in the city of Ipswich, S. D. In August, 1927, following a heavy rаin, water ran down the street on the west side of respondent’s building, washed under the sidewalks, and broke through thе wall of an areaway and into the basement, causing considerable damage to the building. The respondents brought this action against the city of Ipswich to recover the amount of the damagе. From a verdict and judgment in favor of the respondents, and from an order denying a motion for a new triаl, the city has appealed.
The evidence disclosed that the city maintained a storm sewer directly across the street west from the respondents’ building, and that a culvert with an opening somewhеre in the proximity of the building extended across the street and connected onto the storm sewer. About three years prior to the flooding of the basement in 1927, the city had extended the storm sewer two blocks on the upper end and added three additional catch basins. The complaint allеged that the city about four or five years prior to 1927 changed the grades of streets in the city and increased the accumulation of water near the building of the respondent. There is no evidence to sustain this allegation. The respondents’ building was built on a lot that was naturally low. The water drained from- the north and northwest toward this lot. The water did not back up and flood respondents’ property by coming out of the storm sewer, but the damage was caused by water naturally flowing towards the building. The substancе of the respondents’ case is that the city maintained a storm sewer inadequate to carry off the excess water, and this is the basis upon which they seek to recover.
*458
Prom what has been stated above it is apparent that this action cannot be maintained upon the authority of Haley & Hang Co. v. Huron, 36 S. D. 6,
Does the fact that the city maintained a storm sewer of insufficient capacity to carry off these surface waters, cоllecting as disclosed by the evidence, render the city liable for respondents’ damages? There is some doubt in our minds that the August, 1927, rain, which caused the principal 'damage of which respondents cоmplain, could be classified as an ordinary rain, but for the purpose af this decision we will presumе that the storm sewer as maintained was of insufficient capacity to carry off the surface wаter which collected near the -building as the result of an ordinary rain. Under the powers granted by seсtion 6169, Rev. Code 1919, the city of Ipswich had authority to construct a storm sewer, but there was no obligatiоn upon the city to do so. The reasoning in the case of Adams v. City of Omaha,
The respondents rely to some extent -upon the fact that the
*459
storm sewer had been extended and additional catch basins added; respondents’ position seemingly being that thereby an -аlready inadequate storm sewer was rendered more inadequate. But this, we believe, is immaterial.' The -city is obligated to furnish no- storm sewer, and, if the respondents are in no worse condition than they would have been if the storm sewer, together with the additions, had never, been made, they are in no position to complain. See Waters v. Bay View,
The appellant, at -the close of the respоndents’ case, and again after both parties had rested, moved for a directed verdict, which wаs denied. The appellant has properly assigned as error the denying of this motion. For the reаsons herein expressed, we are of 'the opinion that the motion should have been granted. The judgment and order appealed from are reversed, and the trial court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.