McDonald v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Tenth District. Action of damages for the diversion of the water of Bear River to the injury of plaintiffs’ saw and grist mills situated on that stream.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Tenth District. Action of damages for the diversion of the water of Bear River to the injury of plaintiffs’ saw and grist mills situated on that stream. The original complaint was filed March 6th, 1857, and an amended complaint filed January 18th, 1858. The difference between the original and amended complaint consists in the substitution of the phraso “one thousand inches of water sectional area, with a two and one-half foot head,” instead of “ one thousand cubic inches of water.” Among other things the complaint avers that polaintiffs “are lawfully possessed of a certain…
1Opinion of the Court
On rehearing, Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court
Terry, C. J. and Field, J. concurring.
1. Many technical and minor points are taken by the Appellants which we do not deem it necessary to consider. -Some of these are frivolous, and some unsustained by the record. The refusal of the Court to grant a new trial upon the affidavit of the Attorney was proper. Fío sufficient cause was shown. If we could listen to affidavits of oral agreements or understandings of counsel, yet the fact that an Attorney appeared for the defendant and contested this case on the trial, and the counter…
2Cited by33 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Nevada Ditch Co. v. BennettOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Larimer County Reservoir Co. v. People ex rel. LutheSupreme Court of Colorado · 1885
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.