Conrad

Conrad v. Arrowhead Hot Springs Hotel Co.

Good Law
103 Cal. 399·1894 Cal. LEXIS 788·37 P. 386
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 24, 1894No. 19376California1,454 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This action was brought to abate a private nuisance, and for a perpetual injunction against its continuance.

Plaintiffs had judgment granting them a perpetual injunction, and for nominal damages. Defendants moved for a new trial, which was refused.

Two separate appeals are taken; one from the final judgment, and the other from the order denying a new trial. Both appeals are elucidated by the same transcript.

There is also a separate appeal in the same case (No. 19193), from an order refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction issued in the cause, the result of which depends upon the decision of the other appeals, which will be considered together.

Plaintiffs are the owners of certain tracts of non-riparian lands in the county of San Bernardino, forming a part of a larger tract known as the “ Orange Grove tract.”

Defendant, the Arrowhead Hot Springs Hotel Company (a corporation), is, and it and its grantors have been since 1882, the owners in fee of a tract of land situate upon both sides of, and including the bed and banks of, East Twin creek, an unnavigable stream, which lands, the court finds, “are, and from time immemorial have been, riparian to said creek and its…

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.