Grimshaw

Grimshaw v. Belcher

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 673·88 Cal. 217·26 P. 84
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 4, 1891No. 14078California1,051 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haven, J.

The findings of the court below show that the plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land situate on the bank of the Cosumnes River, and adjoining it is another tract, owned in common by the defendants, Alice J. and Lucy E. Belcher, and the estate of J. M. Belcher, of which the defendant Sarah W. Belcher is the executrix; that to protect both of said tracts from overflow it is necessary to maintain a levee in front of both tracts; that just above the line dividing said lands, and on the land of defendants, there is a depression, which renders it necessary that the levee there should be of greater height and strength than at other points. The plaintiff had completed her line of levee, and the defendants were engaged in the repair of their levee, the line of which connected with that of plaintiff, and “ it being feared that the floods would come and inundate the lands to be protected by said levee before the same could be finished, the plaintiff applied to the defendants for leave to enter upon their said land, and enlarge and repair that portion of the levee upon defendants’ said land which extends across the said depression.” The defendants consented, and gave permission to the…

Concurring Opinion

McFarland, J.

I concur in the judgment, but I base my concurrence upon the particular facts of this case. A rule which applies to two coterminous owners of land, who unite in a continuous line of levee for the protection of both, would not apply to many other instances of parol license.

Harrison, J.—I concur in the judgment.

Rehearing denied.

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.