Townsend v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from District Court of Arapahoe County. ■ Mandamus proceeding in the district court to compel the delivery of water for irrigation. The alternative writ was issued in favor of the petitioner Townsend. But on final hearing the finding and judgment were in favor of the defendant company. The petitioner appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Elliott
This appeal is entertained, as in the case of Combs v. The Agricultural Ditch Company, decided at this term. The right of appeal not having been questioned, this case is not to be considered a precedent upon that question.
The petitioner as owner of certain agricultural land avers that he “ is desirous of procuring a perpetual right to use and take water to irrigate said land, and particularly the right to use and take water for- the cultivating season of 1888, from said (defendant’s) ditch.” The prayer of the petition is to the effect, that the court grant a writ of mandamus compelling the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1887
- Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. SouthworthSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
- Golden Canal Co. v. BrightSupreme Court of Colorado · 1884
3Cited by11 opinions
- Croke v. Farmers Highline Canal & Reservoir Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1922
- Quist v. Empire Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
- Agricultural Ditch Co. v. RollinsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Northern Colorado Irrigation Co. v. PouppirtSupreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- People ex rel. Standart v. Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.