Richard v. Hupp

Citations

• 4 Cal. Unrep. 824
• 37 P. 920
• 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1227

Syllabus

<p>Easement—Plaintiff Constructed, a Flume Five Hundred and Sixty-four Feet long in the bed of a stream to convey the water from his mine. The flume éxtended four hundred feet on land below, pwned by defendant. Eighteen years later, defendant built a dam across the stream, causing the water to flow back, but no-t further than the limit of his land. Held, in an action to abate the dam as a nuisance, there being evidence that the flume was built as an adjunct to plaintiff’s quartz-mill, that evidence that the mill was no longer in operation, and that its condition for many years had been such that it could not be used, was admissible to show an abandonment of any prescriptive easement which plaintiff may have had over defendant’s land.</p> <p>Easement.—To Establish a Prescriptive Right to an easement, the user must have been continuous, adverse, under claim of title, and with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner of the servient estate.</p> <p>Pleading.—The Refusal of a Motion to Amend the Complaint, made after the decision in the ease was rendered, to conform with evidence that the erection of the dam by defendant obstructed the flow of debris and tailings from mines above plaintiff’s land, was within the discretion of the trial court.1</p>