Green v. Carotta
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Benito County, and from an order refusing a new trial. On the trial, one Swope, the grantor of the plaintiffs, was permitted to testify, against their objection, that he only sold them the waste water of the ditch. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
This action was brought by Green and wife for the purpose of perpetually enjoining Carotta and others from disturbing what the former alleged to be the natural flow of a stream of water, and for damages for such disturbance.
The defendants denied all the material allegations in the complaint, and asserted, among other things, that there was no stream flowing in a natural channel to and through the plaintiff’s land, and even granting there had been such a stream, that they were entitled to its waters by a prior appropriation thereof, and that such appropriation had been adverse and…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Thompson v. EnzMichigan Supreme Court · 1967
- Chowchilla Farms Inc. v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Harrell v. F. H. Vahlsing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Paulin v. PaulinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Nevada Mining & Eploration Co. v. RaeNevada Supreme Court · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.