De Baker v. Southern California Railway
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. The main facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Instructions Nos. II, IV, X, and XIII, asked by plaintiff, referred to in the opinion of the court, were as follows: “II. To cause water to flow wrongfully upon another’s land which would not flow there naturally is to create a nuisance, and the party creating such nuisance is liable for the damages caused thereby.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. The main facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Instructions Nos. II, IV, X, and XIII, asked by plaintiff, referred to in the opinion of the court, were as follows: “II. To cause water to flow wrongfully upon another’s land which would not flow there naturally is to create a nuisance, and the party creating such nuisance is liable for the damages caused thereby.” “ IV. If the levee was improperly and negligently built by defendant, and diverted the river and the channel thereof so…
1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.
The plaintiff in this action is the owner of a large tract of land lying adjacent to and partly within the charter boundaries of the city of Los Angeles. The defendant is a railway corporation, formed by the consolidation of several older corporations, whose properties it has acquired and whose obli*270gations it has assumed. The Los Angeles river flows through the city of Los Angeles from north to south. Ordinarily it is a small stream, and within the limits of the city is confined to a narrow channel, which sometimes flows in one place and sometimes in another, over a sandy bed about a half…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Lamb v. Reclamation District No. 108California Supreme Court · 1887
- Stephenson v. S. Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- McDaniel v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Green v. SwiftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Archer v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Gray v. Reclamation District No. 1500California Supreme Court · 1917
- Clement v. State Reclamation BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Heimann v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Perkins v. BlauthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.