Hall v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 27, 1924 No. Docket Nos. 4801, 4809, 4810.Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petitions for writs of prohibition because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any active legal proceedings remained pending in the respondent court over which it could exercise jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether the respondent court retained jurisdiction to hear motions for a new trial after the expiration of the statutory period under Section 660 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the petitioner established that the respondent court threatened to take any further judicial action upon which a writ of prohibition could operate.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“respondent court long ago lost its jurisdiction to dispose of the motions for a new trial and that the motions have long since been denied by operation of section 660.”

“The writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent action upon proceedings the birth of which may be prophesied by imagination or hope.”

“In each of these proceedings the alternative writ of prohibition is vacated and a peremptory writ is denied.”

WORKS, J.

These three proceedings, identical in character except as to one circumstance hereafter to be mentioned, are under stipulation to he determined together. A statement of a part of the allegations of the petition in one of

[395]

them, No. 4801, will serve as a basis upon which disposition may be made of all.

The petition contains averments that on May 17, 1917, petitioner commenced an action against respondent Imperial Water Company No. 5 in respondent court, which action is still pending and which has proceeded to findings and judgment; and that the action was brought for the purpose of enjoining respondent Water Company from permitting water from its canals to escape, seep, and percolate upon, under, and through certain lands of petitioner, to abate the canal, or the operation thereof in its present condition, as a nuisance, and to recover damages caused to petitioner’s land by said percolation and seepage. The petition further alleges that the water carried in said canals, and which escapes therefrom into petitioner’s lands, has at all times since May 1, 1916; been diverted and taken from its natural course in the Colorado River by respondent Imperial Irrigation District for the purpose of using the same in the state of California in the improvement and irrigation of the lands of respondent Irrigation District, and that it became and was the duty of respondent Irrigation District since May 1, 1916, and still is its duty, to control the waters so diverted and to prevent them from escaping into the lands of petitioner to her damage or prejudice; that since about May 1, 1916, respondent Irrigation District has permitted and caused the said waters to pass into and to flow through the said canals of said Water Company and to escape therefrom into the lands of petitioner, well knowing.at all times since May 1, 1916, that said water was so escaping, and at all times passed and caused to be passed into said canals an amount of water in excess of the amount actually' furnished the lands irrigated from said canals to cover the loss from seepage into petitioner’s lands; that petitioner’s lands had never been within respondent Irrigation District at the time she commenced said action and at the time it was tried; and that she was ignorant of the fact that said water was diverted from the Colorado River and caused to escape from said canals by respondent Irrigation District, and that respondent Irrigation District was a joint tort-feasor with respondent Water Company, until early in July, 1924. It is further averred in the petition that before the trial and decision of said action, and on or about November 1, 1922, respondent Water Company sold to respondent Irrigation District

Hall v. Superior Court

AI Brief

WORKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief