Parker v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

California Court of Appeal Dec 3, 1920 No. Civ. No. 2190.Published

Before: Plummer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiff would not suffer irreparable injury and that the balance of hardships favored the defendant.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a temporary injunction pendente lite.
Whether the plaintiff demonstrated that the denial of a preliminary injunction would result in irreparable injury.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question of granting or refusing an application for a temporary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the lower court, and its action will not be reversed upon appeal unless there appears to be an abuse of discretion.”

“The plaintiff will not suffer any actual injury pending the trial of this action (by this is meant actual money damage to property), while, on the other hand, an injunction that would tie up the source of water supply for large areas of the country would work irreparable injury.”

[265]

PLUMMER, P. J.,

pro

tem.

Action for an injunction and restraining order

pendente lite.

It appears from the allegations of the complaint that the plaintiff is the owner of 120 acres of land situate in Placer County; that Bear River, a natural watercourse, flows through said land; that at the time of the commencement of this action the defendant was constructing a concrete settling reservoir in and near the channel of said river, at the head of a certain canal theretofore constructed by the defendants; that the dam and settling reservoir maintained and being constructed by the defendants are situate some six miles upstream from the lands belonging to the plaintiff; that for a considerable period of time the defendants have caused to flow down the channel of Bear River to the head of said canal, and there divert into its said canal, about 14,000 inches of water; that the waters flowing down said Bear River carry quantities of sand, gravel, and other debris; that in order to prevent such sand, gravel, and debris from entering said canal, defendants intend to operate said settling reservoir by collecting therein, and filling the same with water, soil, sand, gravel, and debris, and then opening the gates in said settling reservoir and discharging the contents thereof in the largest possible volume, to wit, in a stream of more than 50,000 inches, into the channel of said Bear River, and thence down and upon and over the property belonging to the plaintiff.

The application for an injunction

pendente lite

was heard upon the verified complaint filed by the plaintiff, and three affidavits filed by the defendants. After the hearing of such application, the trial court made and entered its order denying the plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction. From this order plaintiff appeals.

It appears from the pleadings and affidavits that the defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company is a public service corporation, furnishing light and power to various cities and towns, and also supplying a large area of farming lands with water for irrigation purposes. It likewise appears that the plaintiff’s land is valuable chiefly for the mineral deposits contained therein; that it lies, in large part, along the beds and banks of said river,' and is covered with sand, boulders, and other material usually found in such sections of the country. No reasons are assigned in the order deny

Parker v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

AI Brief

PLUMMER, P. J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief