Farrell

Farrell v. City of Ontario

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 224·49 Cal. App. 659·194 P. 69
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 26, 1920Civ. No. 3355.California1,664 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

By the complaint in this action the city of Ontario was charged with having constructed and maintained a ditch or waterway through and by means of which it wrongfully and without right diverted storm waters upon plaintiff’s land, to his damage in the sum of $10,000. In addition to the allegations upon which recovery of damages was sought, facts were alleged upon which plaintiff asked that the city of Ontario be perpetually enjoined from maintaining said canal, waterway, and connections in the manner then existing, and from permitting any water to be discharged from said canal upon any lands from whence such water will flow upon plaintiff’s land.

Alleging that E. W. Churchill, Harvey Churchill, C. C. Groff, and F. W. Bauer co-operated with the city of Ontario in the doing of the wrongful acts complained of, they were made parties in the action for the recovery of damages only. The action was dismissed as to F. W. Bauer and a judgment of nonsuit granted as to Harvey Churchill.

The case was tried before a jury which, on February 14, 1917, returned its general verdict in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendant city alone in the sum of $2,500, no reference therein being made…

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.