Sacramento daily record-union., 1890-09-13
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
DECISION REVERSED IN A SACRAMENTO
TAX TITLE CASE.
August Heilbron Appeals and Wins from
Southern Water Company
Other Decisions.

The following Supreme Court opinions
were filed in the Office OF Clerk ]. D.
Spencer yesterday
Last Chance Water Ditch Company ire
spondenO VS.. August Heilbron ct al. This
is an action for Injunction TO restrain the
defendants from turning away from Cole
Slough or from Kings river, in Tulare
county, the waters which in their natural
flow would Iun down to the plaintiff s
ditch, and for damages. The case was
tried before the Court without the inter
vention of a jury, findings filed and judg-
ment rendered in favor of plaintiff, enioin-
ing snd restraining the defendants from
damming up the sontherly branch or chan
mel of Cole Slough, or from diverting or
turning away from said branch any of the
waters which in their natural haw would
run down 10 OF onto said soatherly channel
or branch, and from in any manner OBJ
structing or interfering with the free flow
of the water into or down the said branch
Of Cole Slough, or through the Dutch John
cut A motion for new trial was made
and denied and defendants appeal.
The opinion is a lengthy one, aad con-
cludes as follows: Holding, as we do,
that the evidence fails 10 show that the de-
PENDANTS have obstructed or diverted or in
tended TO obstruct, divert or turn aside the
waters which in their natural flow would
flow down through Cole Slough into Kings
river at or above the head of plaintiffs
ditch, or have done or intend to do any
thing more than prevent such natural flow
being diverted by the act of plaintiff, and
that plaintiff has been and is estopped
from changing, or claiming the right to
change, the natural flow thereof, il follows
that the judgment and order appealed from
must be reversed
Ellen Red (rsspondent) VS.. j. P. Murry
and wife. This is a suit TO quiet title to
parcel of land situated in the town of Tu-
lare. The Judgment of the lower Court is
affirmed Judge Fox dissenting.
Jacob Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg
(plaintiffs and respondents VS.. Mrs. Martha
Ford. This is Piumes county case, and
the action is for the foreclosure of mort
gage. The judgment is reversed as to the
amount included N the original mortgage,
and affirmed as to the balance, and the
Court below is instructed to modify the
judgment accordingly, the respondents to
pay the costs of this appeal. Judge Pater-
son dissents.
McGrath (respondent) VS.. Wallace ct ais.
This is Sacramento case and an action to
quiet title, accompanied with prayer for
possession, the complaint alleging that de-
PENDANTS are in possession, claiming an in
terest in the property. but without right.
Judgment was for the plaintiff. from which
and an order denying him new trial, the
defendants appeal. The property in ques.
ton was owned by Mary A. Wallace, and
in 1865 it became delinquent for taxes.
Suit was brought for the recovery thereof,
resulting in a judgment and order OF sale.
Eli Mayo became the purchaser The
Court found that these proceedings were
insufficient to divest the title of Mary A.
Wallace Mayo was put into possession in
August, 1865 and from that time till 1878
had possession and claimed to own it as
against the whole world. In 1878 he con-
veyed the property to plaintiff, McGrath,
who held it as her own until January, 1888,
when the defendants ousted her. The Su-
| preme Court says the finding is not sup
ported by the evidence, and as the plaintiff
had no paper title, but relied upon the
statute of limitations for title upon which
| to recover, the judgment and order ap-
! pesled from must be reversed.
Colusa county (respondenD vs.. D. a.
| Hudson. This is proceeding TO condemn
! right-of- way ior public road. Upon a
! verdict by the jury and additional finding
| by the Court. a decree was entered condemn
| ing the land for the right-of way and
awarding the defendant 800 damages. De-
| fendant moved for new trial and it being
| overruled he appealed. The Supreme
| Court thinks the Superior Court erred in
| excluding all evidence as 10 the value OF
| the road, holding, in effect, that the land to
| be taken must be valued without any ref
erence to the existence of the road, and
| Just as if it were SO much grazing land,
| wholly unimproyed. The order appealed
| from is reversed.