Carpenter v. Norris

California Supreme Court

Carpenter v. Norris

20 Cal. 437, 1862 Cal. LEXIS 61

DecidedJuly 1, 1862

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Cal. 437 (Carpenter v. Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. Norris, 20 Cal. 437, 1862 Cal. LEXIS 61 (Cal. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, C. J. concurring.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are entitled to the use of the water of a stream called “ Cayote creek,” and that the defendants are diverting the same to their damage. The answer sets up a prior right in the defendants, and justifies the diversion on the [439]*439ground, of the superiority of their claim to the water, alleging also that the water they are charged with diverting is not the natural water of the stream. On the trial of the case the Court submitted to the jury certain instructions, and directed a general verdict in case their decision should turn upon the question of priority. The result was a general verdict in favor of the defendants, and the necessary inference is that the jury acted upon the direction of the Court and based their decision on the ground of priority. The error assigned relates to the rejection of evidence having no bearing on this point, and whether the evidence was admissible or not is an immaterial question.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, C. J. concurring.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are entitled to the use of the water of a stream called “ Cayote creek,” and that the defendants are diverting the same to their damage. The answer sets up a prior right in the defendants, and justifies the diversion on the [439]*439ground, of the superiority of their claim to the water, alleging also that the water they are charged with diverting is not the natural water of the stream. On the trial of the case the Court submitted to the jury certain instructions, and directed a general verdict in case their decision should turn upon the question of priority. The result was a general verdict in favor of the defendants, and the necessary inference is that the jury acted upon the direction of the Court and based their decision on the ground of priority. The error assigned relates to the rejection of evidence having no bearing on this point, and whether the evidence was admissible or not is an immaterial question.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Cal. 437, 1862 Cal. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-norris-cal-1862.