Sacramento daily record-union., 1889-08-29
NO RELIEF.
THE SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST
MRS. H0AGLANp.
Final Decision in the Old Damage Claims
Suit So Many Years in the
Courts.

l
Court was filed in the office of Clerk VIII.
Jams, of the Sacramento District, yesterday
| 1t is case which has excited no little
amount of interest in this city:
Mrs. ]. NJ. Hoagland administrative OF
the estate of John Hoagland, deceased ap-
pellant, vs.. the State of California. This
was an action for damages. A demurrer TO
the complaint was sustained, and Judgment
rendered against the plaintiff, from which
she appeals.
The facts were about as follows: The
plaintiff, Mrs. Hoagland, alleges that on
the 9th day of April, 1862, her said intestate
husband was, and for long time prior
thereto had been, the owner, in the possess
sion OF and entitled to the possession of a
certain tract of land situated about half a
mile above the town of Washington, on
the west bank of the Sacramer to
river, in Yolo county, containing
torty-one acres. She alleges that the
American river is situated on the east side
OF the Sacramento river, and opposite her
land, and the American river was, prior to
1862. so crooked and circuitous that its
water were greatly retarded in their flow
into the Sacramento river at its mouth,
and great quantities of water in the high
stages Of the said American river were
consequently backed up against the levees
OF the city OF Sacramento, and in the wear
1862 and several years prior thereto, broke
the levee and overt1owed said city, DESTROY
ing vast amounts of property and suspend
ing all business in said city several months
at time.
To remedy these evils the Legislature
passed an Act entitled "An Act concerning
the construction and repair of leyees in
Sacramento county and the mode of rails
ing revenue therefor" By said Act five
Commissioners were appointed, called in
said Act City Levee Commissioners. who
by said Act were given discretionary power
to turn any portion of the American river
deemed by them necessary for the protec-
ton of Sacramento city.
In the fall of 1862 the Leyee Commits
sioners Strengthened the bed of the said
American river by constructing and open
ing canal from it in a direct line to the
Sacramento river; said canal entered the
Sacramento river at right angles to that
stream and directly opposite to the above
described tract of land of plaintiffs said
intestate. The natural and inevitable
effect of the canal so opened was to throw
the water of the American river directly
across the Sacramento river against and
upon said tract of land and to wash it
away. Plaintiff alleges that her said in
constructed and built a levee about
$50 feet west of the bank of said Sac
ramento river, sufficiently high and strong
to protect the said tract of land from all
high waters in said Sacramento river, She
alleges that Immediately after the said
canal was opened as aforesaid, the waters
of the said American river rushed through
1t into and directly across the Sacramento
river with great force and violent current
against and upon the said tract of land,
and began to wash it away and to press
the Sacramento river upon it; and contin-
ued without ceaslng to wash said land
away and to press said Sacramento river
upon it till the 25th day of December, 1867,
when it undermined and washed said leyee
away, oyerrun said tract of land, washed
away and destroyed the houses, fences,
orchard, live stock, household and kitchen
furniture, beds, bedding, clothing, wagons,
farming utensils, ETC., and washed off the
top of said tract of land, ten feet or more
below the natural surface, converting said
tract of land into channel through which
the waters of the said rivers flow annually
for several months into the great tule basin
which adjoins said tract of land on the
west.
Plaintiff alleges that the bank of the said
American river, through which the canal
was cut, was complete barrier which had
always protected said land from the floods
and current of said American river and
which, but for said canal, would have con-
tinued forever so to protect it.
She alleges that no compensation has
been paid to her or her said intestate for
the property destroyed, and no authority
was given to sue said State until the pas
sage of an Act by the Legislature that met
in 1885, emitting John Hoagland, James
Reid, Mrs. Rebecca c. Hoagland, George
Cooper, William B. Todhunter, Mrs. Mary
W. G. Van Arsdale, Henry Lienberge1,
Christopher Green and Charles Trainor to
sue the State of California
Plaintiff alleges that she is damaged by
the destruction of her property to the
amount of $4,000 and she prays for iudg-
ment to recover that amount, and also for
her costs of suit
The Supreme Court says that the above
case is, in all material respects, like Green
vs.. Trainor al Cal, 5S6) and Green VS.. The
State (73 i'd, 29), and on the authority of
those cases the judgment of the lower
Court, sustaining the demurrer, is affirmed
Consequently Mrs. Hoagland does not get
her damages.
Judge Thornton dissented from the above
opinion.
Judge John Heard of this city was the
attorney for the plaintiff.