Jatunn v. Smith
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land through which flows a stream of water known as Wolf Creek, and the defendants, more than five years prior to the commencement of this action, diverted the waters of said stream at a point above where it enters upon the land of plaintiff. This action is brought for the purpose of enjoining the defendants from hereafter taking or diverting any of the waters of said stream, and for a judgment that plaintiff is entitled to have the stream flow down its natural bed and across the land of plaintiff.
In their answer, the defendants allege that plaintiff's…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ryan v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Langdeau v. HanesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Deseret Salt Co. v. TarpeySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Hosmer v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Langlois v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ames v. Empire Star Mines Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1941
- Wood v. Etiwanda Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Cavanaugh v. WholeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- People's Water Co. v. LewisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Ames v. Empire Star Mines Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1941
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.