Parker

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 476 The above-entitled cases were tried separately and at different times. Separate judgments were given and separate appeals were taken. They both concern the same property and rights, and the points involved are so closely connected that it will simplify matters to decide them in one opinion. We will treat each case separately in the order of their respective numbers. Case S. F. No. 9559. This is an action to quiet the alleged title of the plaintiff to certain easements, against the claims of the defendants. This is the second appeal in the cause. The decision on the first appeal was made by the district court of appeal on February 26, 1919, reversing, in part, the judgment of nonsuit, previously rendered by the trial court. ( 40 Cal.App. 68 [ 180 P. 351 ].) Thereafter a new trial was had in the court below and judgment was given for the plaintiff. The defendants Swett and Grange appeal. The defendant Grange, by his answer, disclaimed all interest in the matter set up in the complaint. We are at a loss to understand why he joined in the…

It is ordered that the judgment of the supreme court set forth in the opinion filed March 24, 1922, be amended to read as follows: It is ordered that the judgment of the superior court entered in case S. F. No. 9748 he modified by striking therefrom the whole of paragraph numbered 6 thereof, and by amending paragraphs numbered 4 and 5 thereof, respectively, so as to read as follows: 4. As part and parcel of said tract 3, defendant Swett is entitled as against plaintiff to take of the water of said Chase Creek a reasonable share, but no more than a reasonable share, for use upon said tract 3 and not elsewhere, and for the reasonable use of said tract 3 but for no other purpose. 5. Except as in the preceding paragraph (numbered 4) stated, plaintiff is the owner of, and he and his heirs and assigns are entitled to the use of the right, as part and parcel of said Thompson ranch, to have said Chase Creek flow naturally and undiminished to said 1890 point, where plaintiff, for use upon his said Thompson ranch, has the right to take one-half (1 1/2) of said flow. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Neither party to recover costs on this appeal therefrom. The court below is directed…