Legal Opinion

Osgood v. El Dorado Water & Deep Gravel Mining Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880No. 6,061PublishedCited by 35 opinions

Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from án order denying a motion for a new trial, in the Eleventh District Court, County of El Dorado. Wheeler, J.

1Opinion of the Court

Ross, J.:

It appears from the record, that, in the year 1856, a man by the name of Kirk conceived the idea of constructing a canal *575from the vicinity of Placerville, in El Dorado County, for the purpose of conducting water from various sources of supply in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the foothills and plains below, for mining, agricultural, and other useful purposes. There were many obstacles in the way of the undertaking; for the -country through which the waters had to be conducted was, in great part, rough and mountainous, and the winters so severe that the working season consisted of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Broder v. Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Megerle v. AsheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. In re Willow CreekOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Meridian, Ltd. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897

30 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