Roberts v. Hall

[436]

ANGELLOTTI, J.

This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment given in favor of plaintiff John Roberts, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The action was one for damages and an injunction.

It was alleged in the complaint that the plaintiffs were the owners of a block of land (block 551 of the pueblo lands) in the city of San Diego, abutting on a street known as Witherby Street, which street was the only convenient mode of access and egress to and from said property; that this property was supplied with water for domestic use and irrigation by means of about four hundred feet of iron pipe, laid about sixteen inches beneath the surface of said street, and connected with the San Diego city water supply, which pipe and a meter attached thereto were the property of plaintiffs that defendants willfully and maliciously plowed up said street in front of plaintiff’s property, and dug up and carried away all of said pipe and the meter, all to the great damage of plaintiffs, and threaten to disconnect, take up, and carry away all pipe and meters that may be placed therein by plaintiff, and also to dig up and plow said street as they see fit, which will greatly impede plaintiffs’ right of ingress and egress.

The trial court found that plaintiff John Roberts was the owner of the block of land mentioned, and that the connecting water-pipe was appurtenant to said land. It also found generally in favor of said plaintiff upon the other allegations of the complaint, except as to the amount of damage, which it fixed at $44.50, and gave judgment in favor of said John Roberts against both defendants for $44.50, and enjoining said defendants from plowing and digging up said street, and from in any manner interfering with him in laying or maintaining water-pipes therein connected with the city water main for the purpose of supplying said land with water, or from taking up or interfering with any pipes so placed for such purpose.

The complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action as against a general demurrer, and we see no force in the particular objections as to unintelligibility, uncertainty, and ambiguity made by the demurrer on those grounds.

We see no reason why the findings of fact do not fully support the judgment given by the court in favor of John