Legal Opinion

Trowell Land & Irrigation Co. v. Bijou Irrigation District

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 6, 1918No. 8756PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Error to Weld District Court, Hon. Robert G. Strong, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott

In a general adjudication of priority rights to water for ■irrigation purposes in Water District No. 1, in the District Court of Weld county, entered on the 1st day of November, 1895, the Fort Morgan Land and Reservoir Company, predecessor to the defendant in error, The Bijou Irrigation District, was awarded a decree for 125 cubic feet of water per second of time, as of priority date of October 1st, 1888. These waters were from the South Platte river.

The provision contained in the decree, material here, was as follows:

*204“Said ditch since its construction not having as yet been used to its full…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Comstock v. RamsaySupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
  2. Tucker v. JonesMontana Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Broad Run Investment Co. v. Deuel & Snyder Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1910
  4. Rodgers v. PittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1904

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Nevius v. SmithSupreme Court of Colorado · 1928
  2. Lamont v. Riverside Irrigation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1972
  3. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Fort Lyon Canal Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1986
  4. Ramshorn Ditch Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1920
  5. Rio Grande Reservoir & Ditch Co. v. Wagon Wheel Gap Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1920

9 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