Freshour v. Hihn
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, and from an order denying a new trial; The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
The plaintiff is the road overseer of Soquel Road District, in Santa Cruz County, and this action was commenced by him to have an obstruction placed by defendant in a public highway in that district abated as a nuisance, and also to recover from defendant the sum of ten dollars for every day the obstruction remained after he had received notice to remove it.
The judgment of the superior court was in favor of plaintiff, ánd was to the effect that the obstruction complained of be' abated as a nuisance, and that plaintiff recover from defendant in addition to the costs of the action the sum of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McRose v. BottyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Empire Gold Mining Co. v. Bonanza Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1885
- Talmage v. . HunttingNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Bolger v. FossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- People ex rel. Hawver v. Commissioners of Highways of RedhookNew York Supreme Court · 1835
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Schwerdtle v. County of PlacerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Meservey v. GullifordIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Southern Pacific Co. v. City of PomonaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Graham v. BailardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Meservey v. GullifordIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.