Potter v. Froment

Decided July 1, 1873

California Supreme Court · decided 1873-07-01

The complaint alleged that since January 1st, 1866, the plaintiff had owned a farm in San Mateo County, over ivhich flowed the water of Tunitas Creek, a natural water course and that the water was indispensable to the plaintiff, and he used it for watering stock and for all purposes necessary or convenient for the occupation or cultivation of the farm, and had no other water which he could use for such purposes.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1916

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court:

¶1The complaint does not allege any special damage sustained by the plaintiff, and it was, therefore, error to admit evidence of the cost of boiling and skimming water for household purposes. So, the complaint failing to allege that the- plaintiff rented the farm, or was prevented from renting it by reason of the discoloration of the water in the stream, proof of diminution of rental value was inadmissible.

¶2The cause is remanded with directions to strike out so much of the judgment as awards damages, appellant to recover costs of appeal.