Oneto v. Restano
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order denying a new trial. The action was brought for the purpose of determining the title to a water right and water-ditch situated in or near the city of Sonora, in the county of Tuolumne, and to obtain an injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining the defendant from interfering therewith. Further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Temple, C.—
This is the second appeal in this case. The former appeal, like this, was taken by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The judgment was reversed on the ground that the court failed to find that the use of the water by the defendant and his grantors had been adverse. (78 Cal. 374.)
After the case had been remitted to the trial court, the defendant was allowed to amend his answer so as to aver that for more than five years last past he has been using the water adversely to plaintiff and his grantors.
There is no…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tewksbury v. MagraffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Franklin v. MeridaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Davis v. McGrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Oneto v. RestanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. StroupCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Strong v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Yuba River Sand Co. v. City of MarysvilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Avis v. RebhanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Kier Corp. v. Treasure Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
- Estate of KlauenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.