Jones v. Stivers
Before: Mussell
MUSSELL, J. This is an action for declaratory relief and to quiet title to spring water supplied to the real property purchased by plaintiffs from defendants. The defendants, in a cross-complaint, asked for a decree adjudging that the cross-defendants have no right, title or interest in the said spring water and that they be enjoined from further use thereof. They further allege violation of certain building restrictions by plaintiffs, seek damages therefor, and ask that certain orders be made by the court as to the use of the property involved. The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants and cross-complainants appeal.
Defendants Raymond K. Stivers and his wife were the owners of real property located in the foothills of Tulare County. On January 13,1954, they entered into an agreement with plaintiffs J ones and Newell to sell to them two parcels of [376]this property. Parcel A, containing 57 acres, was business property on which was located a certain business known as “Stivers Guest Ranch” and consisted of a main ranch house, with kitchen, dining room, living room and several rental rooms, four motel units, a separate building known as the recreation room and a house consisting of several units. The second parcel (0) consisted of two lots, namely, 23 and 24, of Stivers Subdivision Tract Number 198, with a home and a guest house situated on Lot 24.
The sole source of water for Parcel A was and is a spring located on land south of Parcel A, across state Highway 198, on property which was retained by Stivers and his wife. Water was and is piped from the spring to Parcel A and to the buildings thereon. The spring water is also used in one of two horse troughs located on the land retained by Stivers. The home on Lot 24 is supplied with water from a pump which is located on the Stivers property.
At the time of the sale Stivers was contemplating building the “Buckaroo Inn” immediately adjacent to the west of Parcel A’s frontage on Highway 198. Stivers, during negotiations and after the escrow instructions were first signed, represented that he was going to extend the water line from (Parcel C) the subdivision water system up to the Buckaroo Inn, and at that time he would connect said water supply to the spring line so that if the buyers experienced any difficulty with the spring supply, they could then open the valve from the subdivision water line and receive water for their property.
Plaintiffs took possession of the property and subsequently sold their interest in Parcels A and C to plaintiffs Gyspert and Myna de Lespinasse. The conveyance of Parcels A and C to Jones and his wife and Newell by Stivers and his wife was executed on August 10, 1954, and recorded September 14, 1954. No mention was made in this deed of water or water rights in the spring supplying water to the two parcels involved. At the time of the sale and during negotiations between the parties, the spring was visibly connected by pipes to Parcel A and to all of the buildings thereon. It was the only source of water for Parcel A, and Stivers, prior to entering into the agreement of sale, represented to the vendees that the spring was to go with the property. The spring was located on a 200-acre tract of land owned by Stivers and this land was leased for four years to a packer who kept his horses on it and used the spring water from the two horse troughs on the property.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)