Burris

The action was for an injunction to restrain defendant from running water in a ditch for irrigation purposes over plaintiff’s land. Defendant appealed from the judgment against him, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The first point made by appellant is that the complaint does not state a cause of action for injunction, there being no facts set out showing irreparable damage and “no statement to the effect that the acts of defendant unless restrained will ripen into a right or easement by lapse of time.” In support of his contention, appellant cites California Navigation Company v. Union Transportation Co., 122 Cal. 641 [ 55 Pac. 591 ]; Bishop v. Owens, 5 Cal. App. 83 , [ 89 Pac. 844 ]; and Willis v. Lauridson, 161 Cal. 106 , [ 118 Pac. 530 ],

These declare the general doctrine as claimed by appellant to be applicable to the particular facts therein involved, but we think the complaint here clearly shows a continuing trespass upon and to real property and that it is brought within the rule of Richards v. Dower, 64 Cal. 62 , [ 28 Pac. 113 ]; Schaufele v. Doyle, 86 Cal. 107 , [ 24 Pac. 834 ]; McRae v. Blakeley, 3 Cal. App. 171 , [ 84 Pac. 679 ]; and Mendelsohn…