Skip to main content
· 3/10/1891

Foreman v. Boyle

Citations

  • 88 Cal. 290
  • 26 P. 94
  • 1891 Cal. LEXIS 688

Syllabus

<p>Water Bights — Diversion of Stream — Misjoinder of Parties — Joint Action for Damages — Several Ownership. — The owners of two different tracts of land, each of whom owns a certain number of inches of the waters of a stream, and who have appropriated the amount of water owned by each by means of irrigating ditches leading from the channel of the stream to each tract, and carrying different amounts of water, neither owner having any interest in the land, water, or ditch of the other, have no joint or common interest which authorizes them to unite as plaintiffs in an action for damages against a third party for diverting the water, or which will sustain a joint judgment for damages.</p> <p>Id. — Injunction — Nuisance — Joinder of Parties — Damages. — The several owners of the waters of a stream may unite as plaintiffs in an action to restrain a diversion of the waters.by a third person, or to abate an obstruction therein as a nuisance; but they cannot for that reason unite in an action for damages.</p> <p>Id. — Misjoinder of Parties — Misjoinder of Causes of Action — Pleading — Demurrer.—If the several owners of the stream join as plaintiffs in an action for damages for diverting the waters of the stream, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from the further diversion thereof, the complaint is subject to a demurrer, both fora misjoinder of parties plaintiff and for a misjoinder of causes of action.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting petition for voluntary discipline where admitted facts did not show that lawyer violated rule he was admitting violating
  • rejecting petition for voluntary discipline where \the facts admitted by West simply do not support the conclusion that he violated Rule 1.2 (d)\
  • rejecting petition for voluntary discipline where admitted facts did not show that lawyer violated rule he was admitting violating
  • rejecting petition for voluntary discipline where admitted facts did not show that lawyer violated rule he admitted to violating
  • rejecting petition for voluntary discipline where “the facts admitted by West simply do not support the conclusion that he violated Rule 1.2 (d)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garoutte

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.