Procedural Posture
Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Sutter County (California) dismissing
his complaint for damages claimed to have been caused by defendant's failure to furnish
water to plaintiff for irrigating his lands.
Overview
For several years, defendant had supplied water to plaintiff, and plaintiff made one payment
for the water in September. In 1919, defendant requested that plaintiff pay for the water in
two installments, one in February and one in July. Plaintiff refused to make the payments as
requested, and defendant did not supply the plaintiff with water. As a result, plaintiff's crops
failed. Plaintiff sued the defendant for damages, and the trial court dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiff appealed. The appeals court affirmed because a party injured by another's breach of
contract must use all ordinary care to render the injury as light as possible. Therefore,
plaintiff was not allowed to collect thousands of dollars in damages that could have been
prevented by the payment of two dollars because his negligence or willfulness caused the
damages to be unnecessarily enhanced, thus, the increased loss fell upon him.
Outcome: what behaviors are considered criteria for a hostile work environment
Dismissal of complaint affirmed because plaintiff had a duty to render ordinary care to
mitigate damages, and his willfulness caused damages to be unnecessarily enhanced, so he
was not entitled to collect thousands of dollars in damages that could have been prevented
by the payment of two dollars.
Procedural Posture
Petitioner taxpayer sought a peremptory writ of prohibition to prevent respondent Superior
Court of Los Angeles County (California) from proceeding without a jury in an action to
collect taxes.
Overview
The state sought to levy and collect from the taxpayer for taxable distributions of motor
vehicle fuel without a license. The taxpayer sought a peremptory writ of prohibition which
would require that the case be tried to a jury. The court discharged the taxpayer's application
for the writ, and held that there was no right to trial by jury in an action for the collection of
taxes. The court noted that, if every taxpayer were entitled to a trial by jury every time the
state sought to levy a tax, there would be no practical way to efficiently levy and collect
taxes. The court ruled that, in civil cases, the right of trial by jury was limited to those cases
where the common law provided such a right. The court held that the right to a trial by jury
had never been applied to tax collection suits.
Outcome
The court denied the writ of prohibition sought by the taxpayer, who sought to require a trial by jury
in his tax case