Thе suit was brought to recover damages to the plaintiff’s land, caused by the act of the defendants in collecting into a single channеl the surface waters flowing over the defendants’ lands in time of rain, and thereby discharging the aggregate volume of water upon plaintiff’s land, to the damage of plaintiff, etc. Judgment was rendered for thе plaintiff for damages, and also for an injunction. The appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial.
*258 The plaintiff’s land lies below the canal of the Riverside Lаnd Company and some distance to the north therefrom. The defеndants own the land intervening between plaintiff’s, land and the canal, аnd also lands to the south of the canal extending up into a valley or ravine in the hills, along which there lies a dry channel or waterwаy; which, it is found by the court, at a point described as the southern end оf the lot of the defendants, known as lot 21, divides itself into three channels, one running along the west and the other along the east boundary оf that lot, and the third over the intervening space.
The waterway along the east boundary of the lot is found' by the court to be the main brаnch or wash, and its general course to its point of discharge is described in detail; and this is true also of the waterway on the west side оf the lot as it was in its natural condition; and it is urged by the appellants thаt these findings.are in some particulars not justified by the evidence. But with regard to each of the findings objected to the evidence sеems to be conflicting, and, at all events, the findings seem to be immatеrial. For the ultimate-finding is, that there were two or more channels or waterways, and that all of these were brought together into the сhannel complained of; and this finding is not attacked, nor indeed’ under the evidence could it be. And upon these facts, under a long line of decisions in this state, it must be held that the-plaintiff was entitled to reсover.
(Ogburn
v. Connor,
Other points made by the appellants are: 1. The refusal of' the court to admit “a topographical sheet of thе United States geological survey” covering the locality in cоntroversy; 2. The admission of the plat put in evidence by the plaintiff;, аnd 3. The indefinite character of the judgment with reference to thе injunction adjudged. As to the first two of these, it is by no means clear that аny error was committed; but if *259 there was, the admission of the evidencе in the one case, or its exclusion in the other, could have hаd no effect upon the result. As to the last point, we think the judgment is as definite as it was practicable to make it. Nor does the objеction urged to it by the appellants apply. It is, indeed, adjudged, that the defendants abate the nuisance by removing the embankment or dike made by them and filling up the ditch to its former level, and that they be enjoined from a further continuance of said embankment and ditch in its рresent condition. But it is also provided that, “the said defendants, as аn alternative tor the doing of said acts, may make such other suitаble and proper provision for the care of the storm wаters which naturally reach the southerly end of said lot 21 as that no greater portion of said storm waters will flow onto the lands of plаintiff than flowed thereon before the defendants made the aforesaid changes on their lands.”
The judgment and order are affirmed.
Allen, J., and Gray, P. J., concurred.