Castle

Castle v. Smith

Good Law
1894 Cal. LEXIS 1298·4 Cal. Unrep. 561·36 P. 859
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 28, 1894No. 18,156California3,139 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Action to recover damages for diverting water from defendant’s land, and causing it to overflow *562 plaintiff’s land, by reason of maintaining a dam on defendant’s land across a slough, and also for opening a levee on defendant’s land, and thereby causing an overflow of plaintiff’s land. In addition to damages, plaintiff prays for a decree that defendant abate the alleged causes of the overflow, as nuisances, by removing her dam, and closing in her levee. Richard Smith, son of defendant, was made a defendant, but, as to him, a nonsuit was ordered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence in chief. The case was tried by a jury, and the jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff on each of the two counts of the complaint; assessing the damages on the first count (for maintaining the dam) at $4,500, and on the second count (for opening the levee) at $3,500. After the verdict, and before the judgment, the plaintiff withdrew his prayer for the abatement of the alleged nuisances, and waived all equitable relief; and thereupon judgment was rendered on the verdict for- $8,000 and costs, taxed at $482.80. The defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying her motion for…

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.