Miller & Lux, Inc. v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.

This is the third time this ease has been before the reviewing courts. On the first, occasion, 120 Cal. App. 589 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 560 ], the question presented was whether the court had erred in sustaining a demurrer to the answer of the defendant. It was held that the demurrer was improperly sustained as to several of the separate defenses, but was properly sustained as to several others. On the second occasion, 136 Cal. App. 493 [ 29 Pac. (2d) 296 ], the appeal was from a judgment after trial. The appellate court determined that the trial court had misconstrued the contract involved herein, and that the water diverted on the south fork of the San Joaquin River by the Edison company, other than that diverted on Big Creek, must be added to the flow of the river at plaintiffs’ measuring point in order to determine the right of the defendant to store. While reference may be had to those cases for a more complete statement of the facts, the contract involved in this prolonged litigation in brief is as follows. It recites the ownership by plaintiff and the predecessors in interest of *431 the intervener Chowchilla Farms, Inc., of a great deal of land (Miller & Lux owned and irrigated…