Logan

Logan v. Rose

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 681·88 Cal. 263·26 P. 106
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 7, 1891No. 13922California1,337 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

This action was for damage against Rose as road-master, and the other defendants as his employers, advisers, etc., for the removal of embankments or approaches to the plaintiffs’ warehouses.

*264 At the trial, on the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case, it appeared that neither Gray, Streeter, nor Smith, three of the defendants, had anything to do with the matter, so that a nonsuit was granted as to them.

After the argument and submission of the case, the court, sitting without a jury, gave judgment in favor of the defendant Rose for costs, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on its merits. From the judgment, and an order denying a new trial, the plaintiffs appeal.

They claimed the right to use and possess the land in controversy under a lease from the Central Pacific Railroad Company, who had derived its title by deed from Charles Crocker, and he by deed from the Contract and Finance Company. The defendants claimed that the land was dedicated to the use of the public as a street in the town of Biggs, in Butte County, before the plaintiffs obtained their lease.

The main question at issue here is, whether the tenth finding of fact in reference to that dedication is sustained…

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.