Coleman

Coleman v. Le Franc

Good Law
137 Cal. 214·1902 Cal. LEXIS 529·69 P. 1011
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 25, 1902S.F. No. 2183.California1,020 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

The action was brought to obtain a judgment enjoining defendants from diverting any of the water of Arroyo Seco de los Capatancillos at a point above the lands of plaintiffs, in Santa Clara County, or from obstructing, hindering, or in any manner interfering with the free flow of said water in its natural channel in, through, and upon the lands of the plaintiffs, and for general relief. The court, in its conclusions of law, found that “plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction against defendants as prayed for, or at all, and the defendants are entitled to a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint and this action, with costs, but without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to maintain another action to determine the proportion of water which the respective riparian owners may use.” Judgment was entered accordingly, from which plaintiffs appeal.

No point is made on the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. Plaintiffs’ contention is, that upon the admissions of the pleadings and the facts found judgment should have been entered for plaintiffs.

The Arroyo is a stream that flows a large quantity of water in flood seasons, but at the close of the rainy…

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.