Blood v. Light
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court, Plumas County. This was an action to abate a nuisance, commenced December 15th, 1864. The complaint contained the following allegations : “ 1st—That this plaintiff is, and for a long time has been, to wit: since the fall of 1859, the owner of and in the quiet and peaceable possession of certain farm or ranch, situate in the lower end of Indian Valley, in Plumas County, State of California, described as follows, to wit: Bounded on the northwest…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court, Plumas County. This was an action to abate a nuisance, commenced December 15th, 1864. The complaint contained the following allegations : “ 1st—That this plaintiff is, and for a long time has been, to wit: since the fall of 1859, the owner of and in the quiet and peaceable possession of certain farm or ranch, situate in the lower end of Indian Valley, in Plumas County, State of California, described as follows, to wit: Bounded on the northwest by Indian Creek, on the upper or northeast end by the ranches of Bacher and Hough, an the southeast side by the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sawyer, J.:
We think the pleadings and verdict sufficient to sustain a judgment abating defendant’s dam as a nuisance. The general verdict in favor of the plaintiff alone is sufficient, and the special findings are not' inconsistent with it. The idea of the jury is not very artistically expressed in the special findings, but the intent was evidently to find that the dam was not only a present nuisance, but would continue to be a nuisance.
There was no error in giving the first and second instructions asked by the plaintiff. The Court did not thereby instruct the jury to find a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Akin v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Sowden v. Idaho Quartz Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
- Ball v. HardestySupreme Court of Kansas · 1888