Bacon

Bacon v. Kearney Vineyard Syndicate

Good Law
1 Cal. App. 275·1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 56·82 P. 84
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 6, 1905No. 28.California1,028 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Buckles, J.

This is an action for damages resulting from flooding the plaintiff's vineyard, alleged to have been caused from the negligence and carelessness of defendant and its agents in keeping and operating certain water-ditches, dams, and head-gates therein and the water running therein on to lands of defendant for irrigating, and which lands are near those of plaintiff. The answer specifically denies all the allegations of the complaint. The ease was tried before the court without a jury and the judgment was for the plaintiff for the sum of $378 damages, with interest thereon at seven per-cent per annum from date until paid, and for $62.25 costs. A motion was made for a new trial and denied. The appeal is taken from the judgment and from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

The evidence is before us in the statement settled on motion for new trial, from which evidence it appears that these are undisputed facts, viz.: 1. That defendant owned an artificial ditch used for irrigating his field of alfalfa, in which ditch are several head-gates and a dam to increase or lessen the flow of the water and to prevent the escape of the water on to other lands; 2. That plaintiff owns a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.