City Asked For Big Damages For The Summer Flood

Twenty-Five Claims for Flood Damages Aggregate the Sum of $15,125

A Test Case Will Undoubtedly Be Carried to the Supreme Court — The Damage Was Caused Last July

The city of Ann Arbor is asked to pay $15,125 damages caused by the flood along Allen's creek July 7, last. Twenty-five claims for damages have been carefully prepared aggregating $15,125.

Arthur Brown and John F. Lawrence are the attorneys for 19 claimants as follows:

Lawrence Sutter ........$ 500
Ella L. Schroeder ........ 400
Susan M. Armstrong ........ 300
Willard Banfield ........ 150
Joseph Cebulski ........ 500
John Adam Schroeder ........ 500
Adolph P. Kern ........ 250
Wm. F. and Pauline Armstrong. 200
Robert Ross ........ 600
Caroline Ross ........ 500
Edward Ross ........ 75
George W. Sweet ........ 800
John M. and Florence E. Bird ... 1,000
Arthur Hagan ........ 300
Henry Richard ........ 3,500
Hugh McGuire ........ 200
Margaret McGuire ........ 150
Geo. A. and Ellen A. Smith ........ 400
Matilda L. Perrine ........ 100

Cavanaugh & Wedemeyer are attorneys for six claimants as follows:

John Collins estate ........ $1,200
Frank E. Colon ........ 150
Louis Rohde ........ 1,200
Thomas J. Keech ........ 350
Schlimmer Bros. ........ 1,000
C. J. Shoeman ........  500

The ground on which the liability of the city is maintained is that the storm sewers and the abandonment of the old race threw a much larger volume of water into Allen's creek, while no adequate culverts were constructed to carry it away.

The lawyers thus state it:

"That the reason of the aforesaid flood was in large measure due to the action of the city and its officers; that the storm sewers heretofore constructed on Huron and Washington streets and the sewer known as the Hill street sewer diverted a large quantity of water from the natural course or channel in which it had been accustimed to flow and shortened the course of said water and precipitated it in a much shorter time and in much greater quantities into said Allen's creek, that the culverts were insufficient to carry the water in times of high water and that the city had had notices of the unsafe and dangerous condition; that the city had purchased the race alongside the creek and filled up the same and diverted the water that was accustomed to flow in said race into Allen's creek."

It is not believed by the attorneys for the claimants that any of these claims will be settled without suit or until the supreme court has passed upon the questions involved. A test case will undoubtedly be made of the claim of Henry Richards and it is not unlikely that it will be tried in the March term of court.

The city's defense will undoubtedly be that the flood was an act of God; that there was a cloudburst in the Second and Third wards, and that the damage was caused by water from that direction and not from the storm sewers.

There can be no question as to whether or not the flood sufferers were damaged. The question is on the city's liability.