Quinn v. Anderson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
This is an action to enjoin the'defend-, ants from obstructing a highway in the county of *455Tuolumne, and to recover damages for obstructing the same.
Defendants had judgment, from which, and from an order denying a new trial, the plaintiff appeals.
The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the findings show: —
1. That in September, 1883, defendants-closed up that certain road leading from the county road known as the Sonora and Montezuma road, through the lands of the defendants to the ranch of the plaintiff.
2. That plaintiff had been accustomed to travel said road during the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Harding & Loftin v. JasperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Onstott v. MurraySupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- McCourtney v. FortuneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Porter v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Proctor v. Town of LewistonIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Niles v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Humphreys v. Bennett Oil CorporationSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1940
- Bartholomew v. StaheliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Cordano v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Huffman v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.