Himes v. Johnson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of Sierra County. Howe, J. Action for the diversion of water from the plaintiff’s ditch, and for an injunction. The complaint alleged the appropriation of the water by the plaintiff’s grantors.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of Sierra County. Howe, J. Action for the diversion of water from the plaintiff’s ditch, and for an injunction. The complaint alleged the appropriation of the water by the plaintiff’s grantors. The answer, besides denying the allegations of the complainant, alleged, in effect, that one Himes was equally interested in the land and water right described in the complaint, and in the relief sought, and that he should have been joined as plaintiff. The following instructions were given by the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court:
The interest which is claimed by appellant that Alfred Himes had in the subject-matter of this action would not make him a necessary party to it. (C. C. P. 384.) Therefore the plea in abatement raised an immaterial issue, which it was unnecessary to submit to the jury. We are unable to see what relevancy testimony as to the rights of persons on the stream below the premises of both plaintiff and defendant could have to the issues in this action, and we think that the objection to the introduction of such testimony was properly sustained.
The objections made to the instructions given…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- De Necochea v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Haight v. CostanichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Geddis v. ParrishWashington Supreme Court · 1889
- McCarthy v. Gaston Ridge Mill & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.