Tenney v. Miners' Ditch Co.

Citations

• 7 Cal. 335

Syllabus

<p>Where the plaintiff sued for i^Vyury to his mining-claim, by the breaking of defend-,, ant’s canal, which was conStiicted prior to the location of plaintiff’s claim, neither' party claiming ownership of the soil, and no negligence in fact being shown, other than that which the law would presume from the breaking of the ditch: Held, that the rights of the parties were acquired at the dates of their respective locations, and that rule of “ coming to a nuisance,” may be applied.</p> <p>There is no doubt that the ditch-owners would be responsible for wanton injury or gross negligence, but they are not liable for a mere accidental injury, where no negligence is shown, to a miner locating along the line subsequent to the construction of the ditch.</p>