Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifth District. Bill in equity to restrain defendants from diverting the waters of Woods’ Creek from plaintiff’s ditch.
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Terry, C. J. concurring.
The error assigned here is, that the Court refused to permit the plaintiff to take a nonsuit after the testimony for plaintiff and defendants was closed. No counter claim seems to have been made in this case by defendants. By the 148th Section of the Practice Act, it is provided “that the plaintiff may, at any time before trial, upon the payment of costs, if a counter claim has not been made,” take a nonsuit. By trial here, is meant the determination or finding in the case. We do not understand that the plaintiff is bound to tender the costs before being entitled to be…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Goldtree v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Westbay v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Hopkins v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Strupelle v. StrupelleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- MacDermot v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.