Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order refusing a new trial. George E. Church, Judge. " The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiffs have appealed from certain parts of the judgment, and from-an order denying their motion for a new trial.
This action was begun in 1899 by the predecessors in interest of the present plaintiffs. Judgment was entered against the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff canal company, it appealed therefrom and on appeal the cause was on February 12, 1904, remanded by the supreme court with directions to the lower court to enter a certain judgment in favor of said plaintiff. (Miller & Lux v. Enterprise Canal Co., 142 Cal. 208, [100 Am. St. Rep. 115, 75 Pac. 770].) On March 28,…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Roberts v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Williams v. McMillanOhio Supreme Court · 1849
- Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- United States v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.