Nuisance—Maintenance of Ditch Diverting Surface Waters—Injury to Streets—Action by Town.—The maintenance of a ditch by the owner of land which diverts surface waters from their natural flow, by means whereof the waters are forced and thrown violently into the streets of the town, and have been cutting down the gutters thereof and otherwise injuring the same, is a nuisance, which the town may sustain an action to abate.

Id.—Findings—Injury by Ditch—Nonconstruction by Defendant— Omission to Find as to Maintenance—Appeal—Reversal of Judgment.—Where the court in such action found that the ditch caused the injury complained of, but that the defendant did not construct the ditch, and rendered judgment for the defendant, the omission to find upon the material issue presented by the pleadings as to whether the defendant maintained the ditch is ground for reversal of the judgment upon appeal, and for ordering a new trial.

Id.—Improvement of City Property—Inapplicable Rule—Conducting Water upon Land.—The rule applicable to the improvement of city property, permitting the damming up of the outlet of surface water not assuming the form of a running stream, has no application in a case where the water is actually conducted by means of a ditch upon other land to its injury.

In.—Rule of Nuisance.—That the maintenance of such a ditch is the maintenance of a nuisance was the rule both of the common law and of the civil law, and is the rule prevailing in this state, as well in cities of every class, as in the country.

Id.—Notice of Nuisance—Demand and Refusal to Fill up Ditches— Admission of Answer.—That defendants had notice of the nuisance appears by a failure of the answer to deny an allegation of the complaint that the plaintiff town had demanded of the defendants that they fill up the ditches over their land and that they had refused to do so. Such demand was sufficient to put the defendants on inquiry as to the injury done to the town by the ditch, and their refusal obviated the necessity of further notice that the maintenance of the ditch was a nuisance to the town.

Id.—Validity of Ordinances Immaterial.—The validity of any ordinances of the town is immaterial to the determination of the question whether the defendants are maintaining a ditch which diverts surface water into the streets to the injury of the town. If so, the ditch constitutes a nuisance which the town is entitled to have abated under the general law, irrespective of city ordinances.

. Id.—Evidence—Judgment-boll in Another Suit—Different Parties. A judgment-roll in another suit between the town and other parties cannot bind or estop the defendants, and is not admissible in evidence against them.

Id.—Remedy of Town to Abate Public Nuisance—Laches—Statute of Limitations.—The remedy of a town to abate a continuous public nuisance cannot be barred by laches, nor by the statute of limitations.