Everett v. Hydraulic Flume Tunnel Co.

23 Cal. 225
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1863·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Crocker, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Norton, J. concurring.

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.

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

Everett v. Hydraulic Flume Tunnel Co., 23 Cal. 225 (Cal. 1863).

23 Cal. 225 (Everett v. Hydraulic Flume Tunnel Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Curci v. Palo Verde Irrigation District
159 P.2d 674 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Winchester Water Works Company v. Holliday
45 S.W.2d 9 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Nelson v. Casey
279 F. 100 (Ninth Circuit, 1922)
Sutliff v. Sweetwater Water Co.
186 P. 765 (California Supreme Court, 1920)
Neumeister v. Goddard
103 N.W. 241 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Murphy v. Gillum
73 Mo. App. 487 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Central, Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.
57 F. 441 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1893)
Hannaher v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railroad
37 N.W. 717 (Supreme Court of Dakota, 1888)
Jones v. Robertson
6 N.E. 890 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1886)