Cheda v. Bodkin
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Martinelli & Greer, for Plaintiff, Appellant in No. 6969, and Respondent in No. 7075. Edward C. Harrison, Maurice E. Harrison, and William B. Kollmyer, for Defendants, Appellants in No. 7075, and Respondents in No. 6969.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Plaintiff sued for an injunction to prevent defendants from interfering with the asserted easement to have a certain supply of water flow from the lands of defendants to and upon plaintiff’s property, and for damages for the cutting of water-pipes by defendant, Julia C. Bodkin. Judgment was given in favor of plaintiff. Prom said judgment, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial, certain of the defendants appeal and the plaintiff being dissatisfied with the amount of damages awarded appeals from that part of the judgment.
The litigation grew out of a controversy over the right to…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Cave v. CraftsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Kripp v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Scott v. MooreSupreme Court of Virginia · 1900
- Thompson v. PiocheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. v. TolmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Owsley v. HamnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Commercial Discount Co. v. CowenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Nay v. BernardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Zanelli v. McGrathCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Grimmesey v. KirtlanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.