Legal Opinion

Mustang Reservoir, Canal & Land Co. v. Hissman

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 15, 1910No. 6354PublishedCited by 29 opinions

Appeal from Pueblo District Court — Hon. Charles S. Essex, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bailey

The plaintiff, Henry Hissman, brought suit to recover damages from the Mustang Reservoir, Canal 'and Land Company, a corporation, defendant, claimed to have been occasioned through the breaking of the latter’s reservoir, thus flooding the land of plaintiff, destroying a portion of his reservoir embankments and injuring prospective crops. At the trial, consideration of damage to crops was taken from the jury entirely, and that matter is not before us in any, phase.

In the first cause of action, beside the loss of and damage to crops, it is charged that ‘ ‘ The break*309ing and -washing away of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Trinity & Sabine Railway Co. v. SchofieldTexas Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Sullens v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
  3. De Costa v. Massachusetts Flat Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Koch v. Sackman-Phillips Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Chicago, Kansas & Western Railroad v. WillitsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Weld County Bd. of County Com'rs v. SlovekSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
  2. Southwest Cotton Co. v. RyanArizona Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Big Five Mining Co. v. Left Hand Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1923
  4. Hoover v. ShottSupreme Court of Colorado · 1920
  5. North Sterling Irrigation District v. DickmanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1914

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API