Legal Opinion

Barrows v. Fox

California Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1893No. 14643PublishedCited by 31 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Ventura County, aud from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court,

1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.

— The plaintiffs in this action are successors in interest to an appropriator of running water. The appropriation was made at a time when all the lands affected were public lands of the United States, and by means of a ditch and flume through which the water diverted, from the stream was conducted to the lands now owned and occupied by the plaintiffs, where it was applied to irrigation, watering stock, aud domestic purposes. The diversion and use of the water for these purposes and by these means liad been continued for more than thirteen years prior to the trial of the action in October,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Allen v. San José Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Peregoy v. MckissickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
  4. Felsenthal v. WarringCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Posey v. DoveNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953

26 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