Gage Canal Co. v. East Riverside Water Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts aré stated in the opinion of the court. Purington & Adair, McFarland & Irving and Henry Goodcell for Appellant and Cross-defendant The Gage Canal Company.
1Concurrence
SHAW, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment and in the opinion of Mr. Justice Melvin, but I desire to state some additional reasons why, in my opinion, the judgment should be affirmed.
There was ample evidence to establish the fact that the defendant, East Riverside Water Company, prior to the year 1900, owned and enjoyed the right to receive through the canal now maintained by the Gage Canal Company a flow of water amounting to 696.88 miner’s inches, subject to the burden of paying its ratable share of the expenses of operating and maintaining the canal from its beginning at the water…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Koehler v. Holt Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
- Freeman v. BarnumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Wiese v. San Francisco Musical SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Castagnetto v. Coppertown Mining & Smelting Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.