Pringle

Pringle v. City of Santa Cruz

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 605·51 Cal. App. 367·196 P. 926
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 1921Civ. No. 3708.California1,146 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced this action to obtain a decree restraining and prohibiting the defendant city from discontinuing his service of free water which he had theretofore received out of a water-main now owned by the city of Santa Cruz. The defendant answered, a trial was had on the merits, judgment went for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The plaintiff claimed a prescriptive title. The court found that the plaintiff’s use was open, notorious, uninterrupted, and with knowledge of .the defendant, but that it was not hostile. The plaintiff contended, and now contends, that his use was hostile. The sole question involved is this: “Was the finding, that plaintiff’s possession was not hostile, supported by the evidence?” The record is very short and contains no conflicts. Prior to 1868 Daniel Ross, the plaintiff’s grantor, had owned and occupied certain lands bordering Branciforte Creek, in Santa Cruz County. About 1876 the Santa Cruz Water Company so constructed a water system that it took water out of the creek at a point seven miles above the Ross lands and led the water in flumes and pipes down the stream and piped it across the property of Ross. In 1878 the employees…

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.