Hargro v. Hodgdon
Citations
- 89 Cal. 623
- 26 P. 1106
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 868
Syllabus
<p>Public Nuisance—Obstruction of Alley—Special Injury to Plaintiff — Pleading — Special Demurrer — Motion for Judgment. — In an action to abate a nuisance caused by the obstruction of a public alley, although the complaint does not by explicit, positive averment state a special damage or injury to the plaintiff different in kind from that sustained by the general public, yet if that essential fact appears by plain and necessary implication, and no objection to the pleading is taken by special demurrer, the pleading will be upheld, upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings made at the commencement of the trial.</p> <p>Id. — Obstructing Access to Private Premises — Private Nuisance. — A private individual may maintain an action to abate an obstruction which, while obstructing the public highway, also cuts off access from his premises to the public highway, and thus becomes as to him a private nuisance.</p> <p>Id. — Damage to Plaintiff—Equitable Relief. — The plaintiff need not show, nor need the court find, any actual pecuniary damage to the plaintiff, to justify the abatement of the nuisance. The fact that the threatened injury to the plaintiff, by reason of the obstruction, is of such a nature that it is incapable of pecuniary estimation is ground for equitable relief.</p> <p>Id.—Invasion of Substantial Right — Continuing Trespass—Nominal Damage—Abatement of Nuisance.—If a substantial right has been invaded by a nuisance, especially if the wrong be in the nature of a continuing trespass of such a character that its continuance will create a right against the estate of another, or operate to deprive such person of a substantial right incident to his property, the nuisance will be abated, although the damage suffered is merely nominal.</p> <p>Public Alley — Dedication. — Where the owners of land agreed to give a certain portion thereof for the purpose of opening an alley, and the alley was thereupon opened, and deeds and mortgages were made recognizing its existenc
Judges: Temple
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court· 1943-12-21· cited 192×
- Union Transportation Co. v. Sacramento CountyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1954-02-19· cited 62×
- Beals v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1943-12-21· cited 36×
- Faucett v. Dewey Lumber Co.Montana Supreme Court· 1928-04-09· cited 14×
- Morse v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1954-10-20· cited 12×
- Abar v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1972-02-15· cited 12×
- Helm v. McClureCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-04-30· cited 12×
- Knabe v. LevelleSuperior Court of New York· 1892-12-15· cited 4×
- Tahan v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1970-04-28· cited 2×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Webb v. Portland Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine· 1838-05-15· cited 64×
- Bigley v. NunanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1879-07-01· cited 29×
- Schulte v. North Pacific Transportation Co.California Supreme Court· 1875-07-01· cited 14×
- Aram v. SchallenbergerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1871-07-01· cited 12×
- San Jose Ranch Co. v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-12-30· cited 7×
- Ford v. Santa Cruz RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-15· cited 6×
- Stallard v. CushingCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-06-09· cited 5×
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.