Legal Opinion

Goodell v. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 10, 1903No. L.A. No. 1197PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

The prayer of the complaint is for an injunction to restrain defendant from changing the distribution of plaintiff’s proportion of water to which he is alleged to be entitled as a stockholder of defendant. It is averred in the complaint that the purpose of defendant in changing the distribution of plaintiff’s share of said water from the hours and in the manner in which he has been receiving it was to coerce the abandonment of a certain contract entered into between the company and plaintiff and one Byram, looking to the development of more water on defendant’s land. Defendant…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Harrison v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Lewis v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Savings Bank of St. Helena v. MiddlekauffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hotaling v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Thayer v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Efron v. KalmanovitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. Blum v. FleishhackerDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1937
  5. Mahan v. MillarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922

1 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