Legal Opinion

Bear Lake & River Waterworks & Irrigation Co. v. Ogden City

Utah Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1893PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from a judgment upon demurrer of the district court of tbe first district. The opinion states the facts.

1Opinion of the Court

Smith, J.:

This action is to recover 11,084.33 with interest, paid by the plaintiff, under protest, to defendant, as taxes for the year 1891 upon plaintiff’s water system in Ogden City, Utah. The complaint alleges, among other things, “that the plaintiff is, and was, during all the times herein mentioned, the owner, and in the rightful possession of a certain water system, designed and used for the purpose of conveying water from Ogden river into said city of Ogden, for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants *495thereof with water for domestic use and irrigation purposes, and charging therefor.”…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lakeside Irrigation Co. v. Markham Irrigation Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Hagerman Irrigation Co. v. McMurryNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
  4. Conant v. Deep Creek & Curlew Valley Irrigation Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Utah Copper Co. v. Stephen Hayes Estate, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1934

5 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