Meserve

Meserve v. Pomona Land & Water Co.

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 1090·5 Cal. Unrep. 759·34 P. 508
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 10, 1893No. 19,112California528 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The plaintiffs claim to own, and to be entitled to divert and use upon their lands, 567/10,000 of all the waters flowing in and from the San Antonio canyon, which is located partly in Los Angeles county and partly in San Bernardino county; and they brought this action to have their title to the part of the said waters, so claimed by them, quieted, as against the defendants. The answer denied all the material averments of the complaint, and set up in bar of the action the statute of limitations. The court below found the facts and gave judgment in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The findings cover all the issues, and the principal contention of the appellants is that they were not justified by the evidence. The evidence set out in the statement is oral and documentary, and, while much of it is only briefly stated *760 in substance, it still extends over more than one hundred and fifty pages of the printed transcript. The facts of the case are numerous, and in many respects complicated, and to state them so they could be intelligently understood would require a long opinion, which would never be of use in any…

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.