Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Consolidated Water Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 29, 1921No. Civ. No. 3573PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

This suit involves the ownership to six and one-half inches of water measured under a four-inch pressure, to quiet title to which the action is brought. The water in question is produced from tunnels in section 3, township 1 south, range 8 west, S. B. M., which are on the property of the defendant. The plaintiffs also seek to enjoin the defendant from diminishing or interfering with the de livery of the six and one-half inches of water which the plaintiffs claim to own collectively. The defendant admits that the plaintiffs have an interest in said six and one-half inches of water, but claim…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Stanley v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  3. Williams v. HarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Harris v. BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Sharp v. BlankenshipCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Caito v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Williams v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. First Federal Trust Co. v. StockflethCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Lomboy v. Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
  5. Weil v. Raisin City Elementary School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API