Harvey v. Chilton

Citations

• 11 Cal. 114

Syllabus

<p>Plaintiffs owned certain mining claims and quartz lode on the banks of a stream above the mill and dam of defendant. Defendant commenced raising his dam two feet higher. Plaintiffs brought suit against defendant, alleging that the addition of two feet to defendant’s dam was a nuisance, and would back the water on to plaintiffs’ claims, and thus prevent them from working them, and would also destroy their water privilege for a quartz mill, which they intended to construct: Held, that the action was premature, and that the demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, was properly sustained.</p> <p>The allowance of costs rests in the discretion of the Court of original jurisdiction.</p>