Case Name: JEROME CHURCHILL, Appellant, v. H. BAUMANN, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1894-10-04
Citations: 104 Cal. 369
Docket Number: No. 18164
Parties: JEROME CHURCHILL, Appellant, v. H. BAUMANN, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 369–372

Head Matter:
[No. 18164.
In Bank.
October 4, 1894.]
JEROME CHURCHILL, Appellant, v. H. BAUMANN, Respondent.
Action tor Diversion ot Water — Consent ot Plaintitt — Bar to Recovery. — In an action for the diversion of water by means of a dam and ditch, and to abate the dam as a nuisance, and to recover damages for the diversion, where it appears that the plaintiff had consented to all of the acts complained of, he is not entitled to recover.
Id. — Evidence ot Consent — Participation in Act Complained ot.— Evidence showing that the plaintiff purchased an undivided share of the dam and ditch, and water thereby diverted, and assisted in repairing and tightening the dam, and acquiesced without objection in the construction of the dam and ditch, and the diversion of the water thereby, until the commencement of the action, is sufficient to prove his consent to the acts in which he participated.
Id. — Binding ot Consent — Pleading—Presumption Upon Appeal. — Although the consent of plaintiff is not formally pleaded as a defense, yet where the court finds that the plaintiff consented to the acts complained of, it will be presumed upon appeal, where the contrary does not appear from the record, that the evidence for which the defense was established was received without objection, and that the case was tried by consent of the parties as if such defense had been specially alleged.
Id. — Second Appeal — Law ot Case. — Where the record upon a second appeal is the same as upon a former appeal the decision rendered upon the former appeal becomes the law of the case.
ID. — Etteot ot Consent — Prior Rights. — The consent of the plaintiff to the diverson by his cotenants is a defense to the action for such diversion, without regard to the question of plaintiff’s alleged prior rights, and it is unnecessary to consider any question as to priority of right which the plaintiff may have had to divert water from the same stream through other ditches, independently of such consent.
Id. — Jury Trial — Equitable Action — Injunction—Damages.—A plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial in an equitable action for an injunction to restrain the diversion of water and to abate a dam and ditch as a nuisance, although there is joined therewith a claim for damages suffered in consequence of past diversion of water.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Modoc County denying a new trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Spencer & Maher, and Clarence A. Raker, for Appellant.
J. D. Goodwin, D. W. Jenhs, Goodwin & Goodwin, and Jenhs & Clafiin, for Respondent.

Opinion:
The Court.
Upon a reconsideration of the questions involved in this appeal we are satisfied with the conclusion reached by Department One in its opinion filed herein March 10, 1894, and for the reasons stated in that opinion the order appealed from must be affirmed.
Order affirmed.