Potter v. Froment
47 Cal. 165
Opinion
The complaint does not allege any special damage sustained by the plaintiff, and it was, therefore, error to admit evidence of the cost of boiling and skimming water for household purposes. So, the complaint failing to allege that the- plaintiff rented the farm, or was prevented from renting it by reason of the discoloration of the water in the stream, proof of diminution of rental value was inadmissible.
The cause is remanded with directions to strike out so much of the judgment as awards damages, appellant to recover costs of appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Potter v. Froment, 47 Cal. 165 (Cal. 1873).
47 Cal. 165 (Potter v. Froment) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Portsmouth Cotton Oil Refining Corp. v. Richardson
88 S.E. 317 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1916)
Mogollon Gold & Copper Co. v. Stout
14 N.M. 245 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1907)
Swift v. Broyles
58 L.R.A. 390 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Treadwell v. Whittier
5 L.R.A. 498 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Parker v. Bond
5 Mont. 1 (Montana Supreme Court, 1883)