Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp.

1 Citing case

  1. Crum v. Southshore Railway Company

    230 So. 2d 100 (La. Ct. App. 1969)

    It should be pointed out that the facts in the present case are stronger than the facts in the Ross case because in this case the record shows the only connection between the pond and the creek was by an overflow pipe which permitted the excess rain water to drain out of the pond and into the creek, and the record does not disclose that there was any actual outlet other than that. The plaintiff tries to distinguish the Ross case upon three propositions, namely: that in this case the pond was in the creek bed of Thompson's Creek, which was not true of the borrow pit in the Ross case; that Thompson Creek has been shown to be navigable in the past; and that the case of Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corporation, 16 Ill. App.2d 154, 147 N.E.2d 708 (1957), impliedly overruled the Ross case. As to the first contention, the Trial Court in the present case held that the pond in question was a completely enclosed pond and the record completely fails to substantiate the plaintiff's claim that the pond was in Thompson's Creek.