Long
Long v. Cramer Meat & Packing Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Henshaw, J.
This appeal is from the judgment. A revieiv of the evidence is sought, but such review cannot be had, as the appeal was not taken within the time limited by the code for such purpose. (Wood v. Etiwanda Water Co., 122 Cal. 152 , [ 54 Pac. 726 ].) The right of appellant, therefore, is limited to a review of the rulings of the court and to a consideration of the question whether the judgment is supported by the findings.
The action was for an injunction and for damages ancillary thereto. The court decreed to plaintiffs an injunction and damages in the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars. The litigation arose out of the following matters, as disclosed by the pleadings and findings: The predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs and the predecessor in interest of the defendant joined as tenants in common in the purchase of certain detached parcels of land in the county of Lassen. It is found that “Charles Cramer (predecessor in interest of defendant) represented to said parties and to each of them (the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs) that by purchasing said lands they could control the waters thereon, and thereby protect and secure for themselves the use and benefit of…