Municipal Corporations — Paving of Street — Flooding of Private Property-—Negligence—Finding—Evidence.—In -an action against a municipal corporation for damages to private property by flooding as a result of the paving of the street in front thereof, where there was substantial evidence to support the contention that the raising of the grade forced the flood waters upon the land, the finding will not be disturbed, -and the defendant cannot claim the damage was caused by an act of God.

Id.—Change of Drainage—Unwarranted Physical Means—Injury to Another.—The owner of property who by unwarranted physical means provides for a change in, the drainage of Ms land so that another must thereby suffer injury may not' attribute the logical consequences of his engineering to an act of God.

Id.-—Act of God.—An -act of God excludes the idea of human agency, and if it appears that a given loss has happened in any way through the intervention of man, it cannot be held to have been an act of God, hut must be regarded as the act of man.

Id.—Act of Contractor—Raising of Grade—Liability of City.—In such action, where the evidence tended t'o show that the contractor who raised the grade, acting under instructions of the city engineer, made the crown of the street higher than the ordinance or his agreement required, and it' was not only stipulated that the city accepted the street as raised in grade and used it, hut, moreover, there was a conflict of testimony regarding the repair and 'consequent raising of the street, some of the witnesses declaring that the altitude of the grade was due to repairs made by the city’s own workmen and not to the acts of the contractor, it cannot he contended that the city is not liable.

Id.—Evidence—Conversations Regarding Grading of Street.—In such action, the defendant suffered no material injury by the admission of testimony regarding alleged conversations between plaintiff and certain officers of the city government regarding the intended action of the municipality in grading the street.