Byington v. Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Frank Freeman, Morrison, Dunne & Brobeck, and R. L. McWilliams, for Appellants. Stanley Moore, Lewis F. Byington, Ernest Weyand, and A. A. Moore, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment by all of the defendants except those sued by fictitious names.
Plaintiffs are the owners of agricultural lands located within the boundaries of Central Irrigation District, and, as they assert in their complaint, their property is susceptible of irrigation from the common source and system of irrigation controlled by certain of the defendants, particularly Sacramento'Valley West Side Canal • Company and Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, although they admit that it will take more than a year to extend the canal of the former corporation from Maxwell, its…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. LombardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Thayer v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Allen v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Henderson v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- La Mesa, Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District v. HalleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Western Canal Co. v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Parker v. SwettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.