Hewitt

Hewitt v. San Jacinto & Pleasant Valley Irrigation District

Good Law
124 Cal. 186·1899 Cal. LEXIS 966·56 P. 893
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 3, 1899L. A. No. 409California2,148 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Britt, J.

Ruby Hewitt and her husband, H. T. Hewitt, join as plaintiffs in this action to obtain a writ of mandate compelling the defendants to deliver on lands of the wife a flow of ninety ^six and three-sevenths inches of water during the space of forty-eight hours in successive periods of thirty days, when demanded by her, and also to recover damages for previous failure of defendants to supply the water in that manner on 'her request. The defendant San Jacinto Valley Watér Company, a corporation (which for brevity we may designate as the water company), after filing an answer took no further part in the case; the defendant San Jacinto and Pleasant Valley Irrigation District (hereinafter styled the irrigation district), a corporation formed for the purpose of promoting irrigation, etc., under the act of March 7, 1887, has appealed from that part of the judgment rendered by the court below allowing the writ as prayed by plaintiffs; and plaintiffs have appealed from that portion of the same denying their demand for damages. Ho question is raised as to the propriety of joinder of parties or of causes of action.

On September 25, 1890, the said water company made a contract in writing with…

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.