The herald., 1896-04-04
Supreme Court Opinions


Four supre me court opinions were re.
ceived at the Office of the clerk in this city
yesterday for filing.
In the case of Patrick F. Ryan, plaintiff
and respondent, VS.. the Los Angeles Ice
and Cold Storage company. defendant
pealed from are sustained. The opinion
is written by Commissioner Haynes and
concurred in by Commissioners Belcher
and Britt, and affirmed by Justices Nc
Farland, Henshaw and Temple. This is
an action to recover damages for personal
injuries received by the explosion of gen.
orator in the company's works, while the
plaintiff, an inexperienced man, was
tightening up the bolts to stop leak. The
jury in the trial court found for the plain
tiff, giving damages, and from this judg-
ment and an order denying new trial
an appeal was taken.
In the case of r. A. Thomas, respondent,
VS.. the Pacific Beach company, appellant,
the judgment and order appealed from are
sustained. The opinion is written by Com
missioner Searls, concurred in by Commits
sioners Van Clief and Belcher, and af.
firmed by Justices Mcfarland, Temple
and Henshaw. This is q special assumpsit
upon contract by which defendant agreed
to convey a certain tract OF land to the
plaintiff. The trial court found for the
plaintiff.
In the case of the Savings Bank of South.
ern California, appellant, Vs.; Isabella
Thornton. respondent. James c. Barr ct
al, defendants, the order of the trial court
denying plaintiffs motion for new trial
is affirmed. The opinion is written by
Commissioner Britt, concurred in by Com
missioners Van Clief and Searls. and
affirmed by Justices Mcfarland, Tomple
and Henshaw. The suit grew out of the
foreclosure of mortgage and was decided
by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.
In the case of the Riverside Water COM
pany, appellant, vs. r. H. Sargent ct al,
respondents, the judgment and order of
the lower court are reversed and the cause
is remanded for a new trial. The opin on
is written by Commissioner Britt, con-
cured in by Commissioners Sears and
Haynes, and affirmed by Justices McFar-
land, Temple and Henshaw. The action
concerns the relative rights of the plaintiff,
a corporation, and the Timber Ditch
Water nps company, ~ also corpo:ation' to the
flowing in the Santa Ana river in
San Bernardino county; each share
of stock of the Timber Ditch
company represents the right of the holder
thereof to use for a definite time all the
water owned or controlled by the company.
Plaintiff claims to own all the water in the
river at the point where defendants have,
by means of dam and ditch, diverted up
wards of 1000 inches. Defendants deny
this claim, and aver superior right in the
Timber Ditch company to divert such
water to the extent Of 1000 inches, and
that any right Of plaintiff to the water is
subject to such priority of the ditch COM
pany. On the trial the court found that
plaintiff was the owner of all the water,
"except SO much as defendants are en-
titled to take and use, as hereinafter
stated" that the ditch company had for
mere than six years diverted water from
the river by means of the ditch and dam,
and has the right to take water to the full
capacity Of the ditch, and during the irri-
eating season to all the water following in
river at the place of diversion. Judgment
was given accordingly, from which an ap-
peal was taken. The supreme court holds
that in cases like the present. the findings
and judgment must fix the extent of the
superior right, viz: the quantity of water
to be allowed to the party whose claim is
paramount; otherwise the judgment fails
to attain the certainty necessary to an
estoppel upon the main subject of litiga-
ton. This was not done, hence new
trial is granted.