Jarvis

The allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which a judgment can be founded. The only theory upon which the judgment in this case can stand is that the complaint sufficiently alleges either a private nuisance, or a public nuisance, from which the plaintiffs sustain some private injury peculiar to themselves,.and not in common with any one else. ( Yolo County v. The City of Sacramento, 36 Cal. 194 ; Blanc v. JTlumpke, 29 Cal. 156 .) It is not* pretended or claimed by the respondents that the erection of the bridge by the appellants is a private nuisance—indeed, the complaint alleges that the estuary or arm of the bay in question is “ a navigable stream, and has been used as such for upwards of twenty years,” any obstruction of which would, as a matter of course, constitute per se a public and not a private *440 nuisance. (Aram v. Schallenberger, 41 Cal. 449 ; L. T. Co. v. 8. & W. W. R. Co. Ibid. 562 .

A. M. Crane, for the Respondents.

The complaint does not contain a statement of facts showing that plaintiffs have suffered such damage (peculiar to themselves, and differing in kind and character from that suffered by members of the…