Gonzales v. Wasson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Monterey. The plaintiff, the defendant, one McKee, and one Doud, were each the owners of a tract of land, situated in Monterey County, and lying as follows: Gonzales was the owner of a tract of land having its southern line about three hundred chains in length.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Monterey. The plaintiff, the defendant, one McKee, and one Doud, were each the owners of a tract of land, situated in Monterey County, and lying as follows: Gonzales was the owner of a tract of land having its southern line about three hundred chains in length. Immediately to the south of the land of Gonzales, and extending the whole length of said line of three hundred chains, was a tract of land owned by Andrew Wasson, the present defendant. To the south of the land of Wasson, and extending the whole length of his…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The Political Code, section 19, retains in force the provisions of all acts in relation to lawful fences. There was then in force the act of April 3, 1860 (Stats. 1860, p. 141), amendatory of the act of 1850, concerning lawful fences, but the act was in force in only a part of the counties in this State. The fifth section of the act, as amended, makes provision for the recovery of one-half of the value of a division fence from the owner of the adjoining land, after ho has also inclosed his land. The Civil Code, section 841, also provides for the liability of coterminous oivners…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Meade v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- People v. ClinesmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- People v. ClinesmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959