Blum

Blum v. Weston

Good Law
102 Cal. 362·1894 Cal. LEXIS 651·36 P. 778
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 3, 1894No. 15376California2,051 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Respondents are the owners of a certain parcel of land in Contra Costa county, which is bounded on the west by a county road, and on the east by lands of appellant Weston, and this action is brought against Weston and his tenant, White, to recover damages for alleged trespasses committed by crossing respondents’ land to the county road. The defendants (appellants here) in defense of the action alleged a way of necessity across plaintiffs’ land to reach the county road, and that in the use and enjoyment of said easement which is appurtenant to their land they traveled across plaintiffs’ land over a roadway designated for such use by plaintiff, Simon Blum.

Defendant Weston also filed a cross-complaint seeking to quiet his title to said easement. Demurrers were interposed to the answers and cross-complaint, which were overruled, and no question is made here as to the sufficiency of these pleadings. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and resulted in findings and judg *365 ment for plaintiffs, from which the defendants appeal upon the judgment-roll.

The findings of fact are very full, and specify with great particularity the whole course of the title of both parcels…

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.