Legal Opinion

City of Fresno v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1893No. 18034PublishedCited by 24 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order denying a new trial,

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

— This action was brought by the city of Fresno in its corporate capacity to obtain a decree abating as a nuisance a certain ditch or canal, owned by the Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company, and which runs through parts of certain streets of said city. The Fresno Milling Company, who had purchased water from the ditch of the other defendant, and *181had built a large flouring mill on the banks of the canal, was also made a party defendant. The court declared the canal a n uisance per se, and ordered it to be entirely abated, that is, filled up and entirely destroyed. From the judgment and from an…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  2. McCrary v. BeaudryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  3. McMenomy v. BaudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. County of Fresno v. Fowler Switch Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Farrell v. County of PlacerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. City of L.A. v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Wade v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API