Bell v. Sausalito Land & Ferry Co.

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 1017·4 Cal. Unrep. 53·33 P. 449
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 13, 1893No. 14,367California1,730 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This action is for an injunction to restrain defendant from removing certain water-pipes, and depriving plaintiffs of water supplied thereby, from a certain spring, *54 and for damages for alleged interruptions thereof. The executors of Alexander Forbes were made parties defendant, but they did not answer, and do not appeal. Plaintiffs had judgment granting a perpetual injunction, from which, and an order denying the corporation a new trial, it now appeals.

There is no material conflict in the evidence. Mr. Bell was the only witness on the part of the plaintiffs, and the testimony of defendant’s witness was mainly to additional facts, which were not rebutted. In 1874 the plaintiffs were the owners and in possession of lot 2, block 29, of the village of Sausalito. Appellant had formerly owned that lot, and was then the owner of lots 3, 4, and 5 in the same block, and also of another lot, upon which was a blind spring, about six hundred feet distant from lot 2, and which, with the knowledge and consent of appellant, plaintiffs improved, and conducted the water therefrom through pipes to a tank on lot 2, and from which water was supplied to their dwelling on said lot. In 1875…

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.