Freeman v. Stephenson (1883) · DecisionDepot

Freeman v. Stephenson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jun 14, 1883Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. In an equity case where a court seeks the advice of a jury, the court's own findings on the issues are determinative. Furthermore, a defendant is not liable for damages when their land drainage does not increase the water remaining on the plaintiff's land.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in overruling objections to questions posed to witnesses Moore and Ricketts.
Whether a court's findings in an equity case supersede the jury's findings on the same issues.
Whether the defendant is liable for damages resulting from land drainage that does not increase the water remaining on the plaintiff's land.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In an equity case, where the court has taken the advice of a jury as to specific issues, and then, as here, finds on the same issues differently from the jury, the finding of the couH determines the fact.”

“the same had not caused any damage to plaintiff.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Sacramento, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The action was brought to enjoin the defendant from draining his lands in such a manner as to discharge the water on the lands of plaintiff, and for damages caused plaintiff thereby. Specific issues were submitted to a jury and findings were made by them. The court found differently upon the same issues.

The answers to the questions asked Moore and Ricketts tended to show that the acts complained of by the plaintiff produced benefits rather than injuries.

Per Curiam. There was no error in overruling the objections to the questions put to the witnesses Moore and Ricketts. Both questions had a bearing iqion the matter of damages.

In an equity case, where the court has taken the advice of a jury as to specific issues, and then, as here, finds on the same issues differently from the jury, the finding of the couH determines the fact.

The findings show that by reason of drains on his own land, connecting natural depressions, the water which naturally runs from defendant’s to plaintiff’s land ivas somewhat increased in quantity, and flowed with a, somewhat accelerated current, but that such drains did not cause any greater quantity of water to stand or remain on plaintiff’s land than would have stood or remained had such drains not existed, and that the same had not caused any damage to plaintiff.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Freeman v. Stephenson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief