Rudel

Rudel v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
118 Cal. 281·1897 Cal. LEXIS 759·50 P. 400
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 1897L. A. No. 358California2,522 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This action was brongbt to restrain the defendants, wbo (except the defendant, H. Dovey, as to wbom the appeal bas been dismissed) are the duly elected, qualified, and acting supervisors of the county of Los Angeles, from diverting the waters of the Rubio cañón and causing the same to flow into and tbrougb Eaton canon.

The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and upon the findings in writing made, a decree was entered restraining the defendants as prayed for in the complaint.

Defendants appeal from the judgment, and the cause comes up on the judgment-roll, without a statement or bill of exceptions.

From the findings it appears that plaintiff is seised in fee and is in possession of that certain tract of land situate in the county of Los Angeles, state of California, particularly described as the west one-balf of the southeast quarter of section seven (7) in township one (1) south, range eleven (11) west, San Bernar-dino meridian.

“The Eaton canon is a canon making out of the San Gabriel mountains, lying about four miles north of the above described land. That said cañón during the rainy 'season delivers a large volume of water upon the foothills 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.