Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. North Side Canal Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1923PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBudge, C. J.

This is a mandamm proceeding. The material allegations of fact contained in petitioner’s affidavit-are as follows: That petitioner acquired the legal title to certain lands in Jerome county, embodied in a Carey Act segregation; that the contract for the construction of an irrigation system was entered into between the state of Idaho and the Twin Falls North Side Land & Water Company; that the Carey Act company entered into a contract with L. M. Nelson, petitioner’s predecessor, whereby it sold a water right to Nelson, evidenced by one share of the capital stock of the North Side Canal…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crow v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Adams v. Twin Falls-Oakley Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Shelby v. Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Parrott v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1920

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. McHale v. Goshen Ditch Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1935
  2. North Side Canal Co. v. Idaho Farms Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Sears v. Orchards Water Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Rogers v. ThomasIdaho Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Mower v. BondDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API