Gould

Gould v. Eaton

Good Law
117 Cal. 539·1897 Cal. LEXIS 697·49 P. 577
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 9, 1897L. A. No. 168California1,207 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

The facts involved in the judgment herein are set forth in the opinion given upon an appeal therefrom by the plaintiff. (Gould v. Eaton, 111 Cal. 639 ; 52 Am. St. Rep. 201 .) The present appeal is by the defendants from that portion of the judgment which enjoins them from diverting to lands not riparian to the creek any of the waters naturally flowing in its channel, and from preventing or interfering with the flow directly back into the stream from the mouth of the tunnel constructed by them of one and forty-three hundredths inches of water, measured under a four-inch pressure. The court found that this amount of water was abstracted and diverted from the channel of the stream by reason of the tunnel constructed by the defendants, and the appeal is directly from the judgment upon the judgment-roll without any bill of exceptions.

The finding by the court of the amount of water diverted by means of the tunnel cannot be questioned by reason of the statement therein of the mode by which this amount can be ascertained. The evidence before the court by which it determined that the loss could thus be ascertained is not before us, and it must be assumed that it was of a satisfactory…

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.