121 So. 117 | Miss. | 1929
The court below declined to direct a verdict for the appellant, and the jury returned a verdict for the appellee.
The appellee's contentions are, first, that the decree authorizing additional work by the district is void for reasons not necessary to be here set forth; second, the extension of the ditch into the appellee's land was not embraced within the additional work authorized by the court's order or decree, and, third, the appellee did not consent to the extension of the ditch into her land.
The first of these contentions may be left out of view, for both the other two seem to be, and we will assume are, supported by the record. If the extension of the ditch into the appellee's land was unauthorized, the district is under no liability therefor to the appellee, although the work incident thereto was done under the direction of *442
its commissioners. This court is thoroughly committed to the rule that a taxing district created in invitum, as the one here was, is not responsible in damages for the unauthorized acts of its officers and agents, in the absence of a statute otherwise providing. Dick v. Atchafalaya Drainage Levee District,
Belzoni Drainage District v. Cobb,
The peremptory instruction requested by the appellant should have been given.
Reversed, and judgment here for the appellant.
Reversed. *443