Chidester v. Consolidated Ditch Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Thirteenth District Court, Tulare County. Campbell, J. The following are instructions four, five, and eight, referred to in the opinion: “ 4. If the defendant’s ditch, in its course, runs across the natural channel of Yokohl Creek in such a manner that the waters of said creek, in their course, necessarily enter the ditch, and if, during heavy rains or freshets, this ditch was not of sufficient capacity to contain all the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Thirteenth District Court, Tulare County. Campbell, J. The following are instructions four, five, and eight, referred to in the opinion: “ 4. If the defendant’s ditch, in its course, runs across the natural channel of Yokohl Creek in such a manner that the waters of said creek, in their course, necessarily enter the ditch, and if, during heavy rains or freshets, this ditch was not of sufficient capacity to contain all the natural waters of said creek, together with such additions thereto as came down the ditch from above said creek, it was…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court:
We are satisfied with the reasons given in the opinion of Department Two, filed in this cause December 24th, 1880. Therefore the judgment is affirmed.
The following is the opinion of Department Two, referred to in the foregoing opinion:
Thornton, J.:
This action was brought to recover damages caused by the neglect of the defendant to keep a ditch owned by it in proper repair, so that the waters thereof overflowed its banks, flowed over .plaintiff’s lands, cutting channels and sloughs through the same, and depositing therein large quantities of crude sand, destroying plaintiff’s crops…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fernandes v. Sacramento City Ry.California Supreme Court · 1877
- Polack v. PiocheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by33 opinions
- Fleming v. LockwoodMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Farrell v. City of OntarioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- California Development Co. v. New Liverpool Salt Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1909
- Heckaman v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1933
- Howell v. Big Horn Basin Colonization Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1905
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.