# Gelhaus v. Nevada Irrigation District

> California Supreme Court · January 14, 1955 · 43 Cal. 2d 779

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553182

## Case

- **Full name:** M. F. GELHAUS Et Al., Plaintiffs; A. F. GELHAUS Et Al., Appellants, v. NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 14, 1955
- **Citations:** 43 Cal. 2d 779; 278 P.2d 689; 1955 Cal. LEXIS 384
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carter
- **Judges:** Traynor, Carter
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553182

## Opinion text

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
The majority opinion does not give proper effect to the extrinsic evidence which the jury found adequate in con *785 struing the contract as requiring that water be supplied for a fish hatchery.
When this case was before the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Mr. Justice Schottky of that court prepared a very able and learned opinion which adequately disposes of all of the issues in this case, which opinion was concurred in by Presiding Justice Van Dyke and Mr. Justice Peek of that court. The District Court of Appeal in said opinion held that the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It reversed the judgment with directions to the trial court to enter judgment on the verdict. The opinion of the District Court of Appeal is reported in 265 P.2d at page 530. I am in full accord with the views expressed by the District Court of Appeal in said opinion and I adopt the same as my dissent.
Shenk, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553182. Public record. Not legal advice.