Heilbron v. FowLer Switch Canal Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the. opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
The facts constituting the plaintiffs’ case in this action are pretty much the same as in the case of Heilbron v. Last Chance Water Ditch Company, recently decided by us. (Ante, p: 117.)
Plaintiffs are in possession of the rancho Laguna de Tache, containing about fifty thousand acres of land, under a lease for ten years, with the privilege of purchasing during their term. Kings River forms a boundary of this farm for thirty miles, and dividing at a point within this distance, one channel of the river called Cole Slough flows through the rancho for a distance of ten miles.
Plaintiffs claim under…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Moore v. SanborneMichigan Supreme Court · 1853
- Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.United States Circuit Court · 1884
- Brown v. ChadbourneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Moore v. Clear Lake Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Stanford v. FeltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
- Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Felsenthal v. WarringCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.