Mabb v. Stewart

Action for Damages—Failure to Supply Water for Irrigation— Injury to Orange Trees — Support of Verdict. — In an action for damages for failure to supply the plaintiff with water for irriga- - tion of his land, to which he claimed a right, where the evidence tended to show that the orange trees of the plaintiff were damaged, by reason of such failure, in the amount found by the jury, their verdict will not be disturbed upon the question of damages.

In. — Ownership of Water Stock by Mortgagee — Direction to Water Company to Discontinue Supply—Duty of Company.— Where, by the records of the water company, a mortgagee of the plaintiff appeared as the owner of the water stock formerly held by the plaintiff, it was the duty of the water company to obey Ms directions to discontinue the supply of. the water thereupon.

Id. — Erroneous Instruction as to Agency not Proved—Notice of Ownership of Stock to Water Company.—Where there was no proof to show the relation of principal and agent between the mortgagee as the holder and apparent owner of the stock, and the water company or its secretary, it was erroneous for the court to give an instruction based upon the supposition of such agency, so as to bind the mortgagee as principal, by notice given to the water company, as his agent, that the plaintiff claimed ownership of the shares of stock.

Id.—Non-payment of Assessments by Plaintiff—Disclaimer of Ownership—Direction Given in Good Faith—Refusal of Proper Instruction. — Where there was evidence to support a requested instruction, to the effect that if plaintiffs, knowing that assessments were due and unpaid upon the water stock, refused to pay them, and disclaimed ownership of the stock prior to the diversion of the water, and the defendant mortgagee acted in good faith on such disclaimer in directing the water company to discontinue the water, “ then the plaintiffs cannot recover in the action,” such instruction was proper, and it was error to refuse it.

Id. — Argumentative Instructions. — It was error to give instructions strongly argumentative in favor of the plaintiffs, which were not justified by the evidence.

Id. — Punitive Damages — Refusal of Proper Instruction—Error not Cured — Right of Defendant.— Where the case made did not entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages, it was error to refuse an instruction, properly requested, to that effect, and the error of such refusal was not cured by an instruction that the jury should award compensatory damages only. The defendant had the right to a positive instruction that they must not award punitive damages.