Meek v. De Latour
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order denying a new trial. W. G. Lorigan, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
Action to abate a nuisance (a cream of tartar works), and for damages. The action was tried before the court without a jury, findings made and filed, and judgment entered for plaintiff that the nuisance be abated, and for $1,000 as damages. A motion for new trial was denied, and the case comes here upon an appeal from the judgment and order, upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions.
The first question presented is as to the correctness of the ruling of the trial court overruling defendant’s demurrer to the complaint; it being urged that, because the complaint shows that many persons…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sappenfield v. Main Street & Agricultural Park RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Fisher v. ZumwaltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Sullivan v. RoyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Bigley v. NunanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
- Peden v. CavinsIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Spaulding v. CameronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Kafka v. BozioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Rynsburger v. Dairymen's Fertilizer Cooperative, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- Robinson v. PulsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.