Montezuma Improvement Co. v. Simmerly
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County. J. Q. "White, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Plaintiff and appellant owned unfenced lands in Mendocino County. Plaintiff sought by this suit to obtain damages for trespass upon his land of animals owned by -defendants, and also prayed for an injunction to prevent further incursions of defendants’ cattle. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment which followed.
Two questions are presented. The first is whether or not the common-law rule requiring the owner of cattle to keep his animals from his neighbors’ lands, fenced or unfenced, is in operation in Mendocino County. The other relates…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Blevins v. MullallyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- In Re Estate of CarragharCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Hicks v. ButterworthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Hahn v. GarrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by7 opinions
- Herzberg v. County of PlumasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Williams v. GoodwinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Uptown Enterprises v. StrandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Broady v. JenningsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Yraceburn v. CapeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.