Davis v. City of Sacramento

California Supreme Court

Davis v. City of Sacramento

59 Cal. 596

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1881

DocketNo. 8,075

StatusPublished

This text of 59 Cal. 596 (Davis v. City of Sacramento) 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

Davis v. City of Sacramento, 59 Cal. 596 (Cal. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court:

The Act of March 12, 1868 (Stat. 1867—8, p. 127), authorized “ the construction of a ditch or canal for drainage purposes, leading from the north line of R Street, Sacramento, to the channel or slough known as Snodgrass Slough or to Bloom’s Lake.” The complaint alleges the construction of a drainage canal from said city “to the head of Beach’s Lake.” If, as contended on the oral argument, the canal was not completed to the lower point named in the Act, but fell short of it, and emptied the sewage into a lake or slough other than those specified, and by reason thereof the acts complained of were performed and the damage sustained, plaintiff doubtless has a cause of action, and is entitled to relief. Looking at the Act above referred to and the complaint, we can not say that the canal, terminating in Beach’s Lake, has been constructed and used the entire distance contemplated by the Act.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instruction to overrule the demurrer, with leave to defendant to answer.

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

The Court:

The Act of March 12, 1868 (Stat. 1867—8, p. 127), authorized “ the construction of a ditch or canal for drainage purposes, leading from the north line of R Street, Sacramento, to the channel or slough known as Snodgrass Slough or to Bloom’s Lake.” The complaint alleges the construction of a drainage canal from said city “to the head of Beach’s Lake.” If, as contended on the oral argument, the canal was not completed to the lower point named in the Act, but fell short of it, and emptied the sewage into a lake or slough other than those specified, and by reason thereof the acts complained of were performed and the damage sustained, plaintiff doubtless has a cause of action, and is entitled to relief. Looking at the Act above referred to and the complaint, we can not say that the canal, terminating in Beach’s Lake, has been constructed and used the entire distance contemplated by the Act.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instruction to overrule the demurrer, with leave to defendant to answer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Cal. 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-city-of-sacramento-cal-1881.