Spargur

Spargur v. Heard

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 919·90 Cal. 221·27 P. 198
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1891No. 13820California1,219 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Belcher, J.

— This action was brought to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the diversion of water, and for damages. The court below granted the injunction, but without damages. The appeal is from the judgment, and rests on the judgment roll.

1. It is claimed by appellants that their demurrer should have been sustained, but we think it was properly overruled. The complaint stated a cause of action, and it was not ambiguous, unintelligible, and uncertain. The plaintiffs were husband and wife, but a husband may be joined as plaintiff with his wife in an action which concerns her separate property. (Calderwood v. Pyser, 31 Cal. 333 ; Corcoran v. Doll, 32 Cal. 83 .) Plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Spargur and her grantors had owned, possessed, and occupied the lands described for the periods named, and that she was then the owner thereof; and they deraigned her title to the ditch and water right from the first appropriator. This was sufficient.

2. It is contended that the court did not find upon all the material issues raised by the pleadings. Under this head it is urged that there was no finding upon the issue tendered by plaintiffs’ averment “ that the defendants threaten and intend, and…

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.