Loveland v. Gardner
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lassen County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
— The defendants inclosed their land with a barb-wire fence, part of it running along a highway. The posts were thirty-six feet apart, and had fastened to them three strands of barb wire. The first strand was twenty-four inches above the ground; the second, thirteen inches above the first; and the third, fifteen inches above the second. Nothing was used in the construction of the fence but posts and wire. 'The fence was built entirely upon the lands of the defendants. Plaintiff, who is an adjoining owner, and a stock-raiser, alleged and proved that some of his horses came in contact with the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Powers v. HarlowMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Birge v. GardinerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
- Emerson v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Sisk v. CrumpIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Durham v. MusselmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1827
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Murray v. HeinzeMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Sanchez v. East Contra Costa Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
- Davis v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Foster v. SwopeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Brown v. CooperCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.