TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Van Camp v. Rodgers

ESTHER A. VAN CAMP, of the Estate of JAMES H. VAN CAMP v. JOSEPH RODGERS

Van Camp v. Rodgers, 147 P. 1056 (Idaho 1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 18, 1915
Judges
Budge, Morgan, Sullivan
Citations
147 P. 105627 Idaho 1221915 Ida. LEXIS 30
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Damages — Demurrer—Change of Venue — Admitting Evidence — New-Trial. 1. Held, that the court did not err in overruling the demurrer to amended complaint, in denying defendant’s motion for a change of venue, in admitting certain evidence and in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District for Custer County. Hon. J. M. Stevens, Judge. Action to recover damages on account of injury to crops and land by reason of defendant’s depriving the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest of certain water to which they were entitled for the irrigation of said land. Judgment for plaintiffs.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Sullivan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SULLIVAN, C. J.

— This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiffs by reason of the defendant’s interfering with their use of water for irrigating certain lands to which they allege they were entitled during the years 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912. In the original complaint the damages claimed amounted to $7,640. A demurrer to the complaint was confessed by the plaintiffs and the amended complaint was filed in which the damages claimed amounted to $6,680. A demurrer to the amended complaint was overruled and the ease was tried by the court with a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,665. A motion for a new trial was denied and the appeal is from the judgment and order denying a new trial.

The appellant assigns as error the overruling of the demurrer to the amended complaint, the denying of defendant’s motion for a change of venue, the admitting of certain evidence and the overruling of defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Upon a careful examination of all of the errors assigned we are fully satisfied that the record contains no reversible error. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the amended complaint; did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a change of venue; did not err in the admission of evidence, nor in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*124 We therefore conclude that the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur.

Petition for rehearing denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list