Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Cal. 575

Newcomb v. Tisdale

California Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 1881

California Supreme Court · decided 1881-08-30

<p>Destruction op Property under Urgent Necessity.—In an action to recover damages for the destruction of crops, etc., caused by defendants cutting a levee or embankment across Wilkin’s Slough, the defendants justified under an alleged urgent necessity to save life and property from destruction; and the evidence tended to show that such necessity existed, under the stress of which they acted. The Court, in effect, instructed the jury, that if the levee or embankment was coustructed in pursuance of plans reported to the Board of Supervisors of Colusa County, etc., then the act of the defendants was unlawful, and they were responsible in damages for any injury sustained by the plaintiffs.</p> <p>Held: This instruction took from the jury the defense set up, and in effect directed them to disregard it; for this error, judgment reversed. (My-rick and McKee, JJ., dissenting.)</p>

Decided 1881-08-30

Thornton, J.:

¶1In this action, which was brought to recover damages for *576the destruction of crops, etc., caused by defendants cutting a levee or embankment across Wilkin’s Slough, the defendants justified under an urgent necessity to save life and property from destruction. The evidence tended to show that such necessity existed, under the stress of which they acted. The Court instructed the jury if the levee or embankment across Wilkin’s Slough, the cutting of which is complained of, was constructed in pursuance of plans reported to the Board of Supervisors of Colusa County of Reclamation District No. 108, then the defendants had no right to cut the levee without the consent of the owners thereof, and if they did so cut it, their act was an unlawful act, for which they were responsible in damages for any injury sustained by plaintiffs.

¶2This instruction took from the jury the defense set up, and in effect directed them to disregard it.

¶3This was repeated in the direction given by the learned Judge to the jury when he read to them Request vii. of defendants.

¶4For this error, the judgment and order are reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

¶5Ross, MoKinstey, and Sbaepstein, JJ., concurred.

/62/cal/575 · .json · Public domain