Legal Opinion

Blanchard v. Hartley

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

The testimony in this proceeding is unnecessarily voluminous. A great deal of testimony was directed to a notice, which was recorded by Mathias Chapman, who claimed 150 inches of water from the west fork of Williams Creek. It is contended that the notice originally read 250 inches. The only office of this notice is to give notice to the world of the claim of said Chapman. The question of a change in the number of inches is not material. The defendant Hartley made no claim to any of the water for 25 years after the notice was recorded. The successors in interest of said Chapman do not claim to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Nevada Ditch Co. v. BennettOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  2. In re Willow CreekOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
  4. Gardner v. WrightOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Seaweard v. Pacific Livestock Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Re Water Rights of Burnt RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  2. In Re Determination of Water Rights of Owyhee RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Wendt v. Eastern Oregon Land Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API