Case Name: S. NEWCOMB et al. v. JAMES B. TISDALE et al.
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1881-08-30
Citations: 62 Cal. 575
Docket Number: No. 7,754
Parties: S. NEWCOMB et al. v. JAMES B. TISDALE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 575–580

Head Matter:
[No. 7,754.
In Bank.]
August 30, 1881.
S. NEWCOMB et al. v. JAMES B. TISDALE et al.
Destruction op Property under Urgent Necessity.—In an action to recover damages for the destruction of crops, etc., caused by defendants cutting a levee or embankment across Wilkin’s Slough, the defendants justified under an alleged urgent necessity to save life and property from destruction; and the evidence tended to show that such necessity existed, under the stress of which they acted. The Court, in effect, instructed the jury, that if the levee or embankment was coustructed in pursuance of plans reported to the Board of Supervisors of Colusa County, etc., then the act of the defendants was unlawful, and they were responsible in damages for any injury sustained by the plaintiffs.
Held: This instruction took from the jury the defense set up, and in effect directed them to disregard it; for this error, judgment reversed. (My-rick and McKee, JJ., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of the County of Colusa. Hatch, J.
J. G. Ball and Jo Hamilton, for Appellants.
The law of necessity invoked by the appellants was conclusive, and the Court below erred in disregarding it. (2 Kent’s Com. 338, 339; 1 Hilliard on Torts, 97; Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 73, 74; Russell v. The Mayor etc., 2 Denio, 474; The Mayor etc. v. Lord, 17 Wend. 285; S. C., 18 id. 129, 130; American Print Works v. Lawrence, 1 Zab. 257, 258; Hale v. Lawrence, 1 id. 729, 730.)
A. L. é T. J. Hart, for Respondents.,

Opinion:
Thornton, J.:
In this action, which was brought to recover damages for the destruction of crops, etc., caused by defendants cutting a levee or embankment across Wilkin's Slough, the defendants justified under an urgent necessity to save life and property from destruction. The evidence tended to show that such necessity existed, under the stress of which they acted. The Court instructed the jury if the levee or embankment across Wilkin's Slough, the cutting of which is complained of, was constructed in pursuance of plans reported to the Board of Supervisors of Colusa County of Reclamation District No. 108, then the defendants had no right to cut the levee without the consent of the owners thereof, and if they did so cut it, their act was an unlawful act, for which they were responsible in damages for any injury sustained by plaintiffs.
This instruction took from the jury the defense set up, and in effect directed them to disregard it.
This was repeated in the direction given by the learned Judge to the jury when he read to them Request vii. of defendants.
For this error, the judgment and order are reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Ross, MoKinstey, and Sbaepstein, JJ., concurred.