Peterson

Peterson v. City of Santa Rosa

Good Law
119 Cal. 387·1897 Cal. LEXIS 907·51 P. 557
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 20, 1897S. F. No. 671California1,676 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This is an action to restrain the defendant, a municipal corporation, from polluting the waters of Santa Rosa creek by discharging or permitting to run into said stream, above the lands of the plaintiff, any of the sewage from the city of Santa Rosa, the defendant herein, and to recover damages for past injury.

Plaintiff had judgment for one dollar damages and a perpetual injunction restraining defendant as prayed in her complaint. Defendant appeals from so much of the decree as awards an injunction. The cause comes up on the judgment-roll.

The record shows that the cause was tried before a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff for one dollar; that thereafter, and before the findings were prepared, the cause was opened and testimony taken in support of the “amended supplemen *389 tal answer” of defendant filed May 4, 1896 (the day of the jury trial). The eleventh finding by the court is in reference to the showing on such “amended supplemental answer,” the object of which answer was to show to the court that defendant had, since the filing of its amended answer, been engaged in and had about completed a sewage disposal plant of approved kind to filter, precipitate,…

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.