From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Everett v. Hydraulic Flume Tunnel Co.

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1863
23 Cal. 225 (Cal. 1863)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, Butte County.

         COUNSEL:

         McRae & Beatty, for Appellants.

          C. F. Lott, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Norton, J. concurring.

         OPINION

          CROCKER, Judge

         This is an action to recover damages caused by the breaking of a dam owned by the defendants. The plaintiffs are the owners of mining claims and sluice-boxes below the defendants' dam, which broke at a high stage of water, and, as is alleged, injured the plaintiffs' property below. The case was tried by the Court, who found for the defendants, and the plaintiffs appeal. The Court found that the dam was " well built, and constructed in a good and workmanlike manner, and of sufficient strength and capacity to contain the amount of water within it; " that no negligence on the part of the defendants was shown, and that they used that reasonable care and diligence which prudent men would have used, in the erection and care of the dam. Under these findings, the Court properly rendered judgment for the defendants, as the case comes clearly within the rule laid down in Hoffman v. The Tuolumne Water Company , 10 Cal. 413, and Wolf v. The St. Louis Independent Water Company, Id. 541. But the appellant insists that the findings upon these points are not sustained by the evidence. We have carefully examined the record, and see no error in these findings. They are fairly sustained by the evidence.

         The judgment is therefore affirmed.


Summaries of

Everett v. Hydraulic Flume Tunnel Co.

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1863
23 Cal. 225 (Cal. 1863)
Case details for

Everett v. Hydraulic Flume Tunnel Co.

Case Details

Full title:EVERETT et al. v. THE HYDRAULIC FLUME TUNNEL COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1863

Citations

23 Cal. 225 (Cal. 1863)

Citing Cases

Sutliff v. Sweetwater Water Company

Such reversal was, of course, wholly inconsistent with the contention of the plaintiff here that the…

Nelson v. Casey

'That every man may do as he chooses with his own property, provided he does not injure another's; but there…