Legal Opinion

Spargur v. Heard

California Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1891No. 13820PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Modoc County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C.

— This action was brought to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the diversion of water, and for damages. The court below granted the injunction, but without damages. The appeal is from the judgment, and rests on the judgment roll.

1. It is claimed by appellants that their demurrer should have been sustained, but we think it was properly overruled. The complaint stated a cause of action, and it was not ambiguous, unintelligible, and uncertain. The plaintiffs were husband and wife, but a husband may be joined as plaintiff with his wife in an action which concerns her separate…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Moore v. Clear Lake Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Heilbron v. Last Chance Water Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Burton v. BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Calderwood v. PyserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Orange County Water District v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Glatts v. HensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948

9 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