Legal Opinion

Churchill v. Baumann

California Supreme Court

Decided August 6, 1892No. 14443PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Modoc County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Vanclief, C.

This action was commenced on the first day of April, 1889, to recover eight thousand eight hundred dollars damages from the defendants — seven in number — for the alleged diversion of water from a natural stream — Pine Creek — in Modoc County, during the years 1887 and 1888, to the injury of plaintiff’s riparian and appropriated water rights below the point of diversion; and also to enjoin such diversion pendente lite, and upon the bearing, perpetually.

Judgment passed for defendants, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment on the roll and without a bill of exceptions.

The court…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Miller v. LucoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Coveny v. HaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Miller v. BrighamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Lyon v. TallmadgeNew York Court of Chancery · 1814

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Kafka v. BozioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. County of San Luis Obispo v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Arnold v. May Department Stores Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  4. Hudson v. CraftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Phillips v. StarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

12 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