Montgomery v. Locke
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover damages for injuries caused to the land and fruit-trees of the plaintiff, by reason of an overflow of water produced by certain levees constructed and maintained by the defendants. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
This cause was decided in an opinion filed August 30, 1886. (11 Pac. Rep. 874.) A reargument in Bank was ordered, and it is again brought under review.
It is submitted by appellants that the former opinion shows a misapprehension of important facts when it *76states that levee No. 1 was built by defendants in 1879 or 1880.
Levee No. 1 was originally constructed many years prior to 1879, but having been repeatedly broken by action of water, was in 1879 practically incapable of restraining the flow of water, until such portions of it as had been destroyed were rebuilt; such portions were…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mitchell v. BillingsleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Montgomery v. LockeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by20 opinions
- Board of Education v. Dresden SwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Posz v. BurchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Dwight v. . E., C. N.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Samson Construction Co. v. BrusowankinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- Gilman v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.