Lux v. Haggin
Citations
- 69 Cal. 255
Syllabus
<p>Injunction — Estoppel—Laches—Delay. —As tlie case was presented in the court below, the plaintiffs were not estopped from seeking relief by injunction by reason of their laches or delay.</p> <p>Id. — Estoppel in Pais—What Constitutes.—To constitute an estoppel in paii, it must be shown that the party claiming the benefit of it was without knowledge of his own legal rights, and of the means of acquiring such knowledge; that the person sought to he estopped has made an admission or done an act with the intention of influencing the conduct of the other, or that he had reason to believe would influence his conduct, inconsistent with the evidence he proposes to give, or the title he proposes to set up; that the other party has acted upon or been influenced by such act or declaration, and will be prejudiced by allowing the truth of the admission to be disproved.</p> <p>Id. —Riparian Proprietor—Unlawful Diversion of Water—Knowledge of Construction of Ditch.—A riparian proprietor is not es-topped from objecting to the unlawful diversion of the waters of a stream flowing through his land, by reason of the mere fact that the ditches used in diverting the water were constructed at great expense, with his knowledge and without objection by him.</p> <p>Equity—Statute of Limitations—Delay for Less than Statutory Period. — Where an express statute of limitations applies to a suit in equity, mere delay to commence the suit for a period less than that of the statute is never a reason for dismissing it; and where the defendant relies on mere delay and his own adverse use, the statutory period having expired, he must plead the statute.</p> <p>Id. —Section 343 of Code of Civil Procedure—Applicable to Suits in Equity.—Section 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that “an action for relief not hereinbefore provided for must be commenced within four years after the cause of action shall have accrued,” applies •to suits in equity as well as to actions at law.</p> <p>Id. — Acqui
Judges: McKinstry, Myrick, Ross
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1908-01-23· cited 54×
- Scott v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-11-30· cited 52×
- Turlock Irrigation District v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-05-31· cited 45×
- Seymour v. McAvoyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-07-16· cited 45×
- Yazoo & M. V. R. v. ScottMississippi Supreme Court· 1914-10-15· cited 41×
- Murphy v. ClaytonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-06-05· cited 36×
- Modoc Land & Live Stock Co. v. BoothCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-03-29· cited 28×
- Alpers v. HuntCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-09-27· cited 26×
- Harris v. HarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-03-25· cited 26×
- Paxton & Hershey Irrigating Canal & Land Co. v. Farmers & Merchants Irrigation & Land Co.Nebraska Supreme Court· 1895-10-01· cited 26×
- Oury v. GoodwinArizona Supreme Court· 1891-01-24· cited 25×
- Heilbron v. Last Chance Water Ditch Co.California Supreme Court· 1888-02-15· cited 21×
- Dore v. ThornburghCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-06-30· cited 20×
- State v. Muncie Pulp Co.Tennessee Supreme Court· 1907-09-15· cited 20×
- Mott v. EwingCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-07-16· cited 18×
- Miller & Lux v. RickeyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada· 1904-01-04· cited 16×
- Lindsay Irrigation Co. v. MehrtensCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-03-27· cited 15×
- Heilbron v. 76 Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court· 1889-08-05· cited 13×
- Twining v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1945-02-19· cited 11×
- United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility DistrictS.D. California· 1951-08-15· cited 11×
Cites
68 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- WILLSON AND OTHERS v. the Black Bird Creek Marsh CompanySupreme Court· 1829-03-20· cited 294×
- Hughes v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1866-12-17· cited 200×
- Godden v. KimmellSupreme Court· 1879-04-21· cited 139×
- Hart v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court· 1860-07-01· cited 139×
- French v. FyanSupreme Court· 1876-10-30· cited 130×
- Brown v. County of Buena VistaSupreme Court· 1877-11-19· cited 121×
- Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woollen Co.Supreme Court· 1863-02-18· cited 111×
- Williams v. McMillanOhio Supreme Court· 1849-12-15· cited 110×
- Broder v. Water Co.Supreme Court· 1879-11-24· cited 109×
- Taylor v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1866-07-01· cited 96×
- Irvine v. MarshallSupreme Court· 1858-05-14· cited 76×
- People v. WebbCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-07-01· cited 75×
- Webb v. Portland Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine· 1838-05-15· cited 64×
- People v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1854-01-15· cited 63×
- Hanson v. McCueCalifornia Supreme Court· 1871-10-15· cited 46×
- Wiggin v. Mayor of New-YorkNew York Court of Chancery· 1841-03-02· cited 46×
- Ehrhardt v. HogaboomSupreme Court· 1885-05-04· cited 44×
- Vansickle v. HainesNevada Supreme Court· 1872-01-15· cited 44×
- Anaheim Water Co. v. Semi-Tropic Water Co.California Supreme Court· 1883-09-27· cited 40×
- Stockton v. Common Council of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1871-07-01· cited 36×
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.