Umatilla Irrigation Co. v. Barnhart
Oregon Supreme Court
Umatilla county": James A. Fee, Judge. Defendants appeal. This is an action to condemn the riparian rights of the appellants in a portion of the waters of Umatilla river under the provisions of the act of the legislative assembly, passed at the session in 1891. (Laws, 1891,52.) The action was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury.
Read the full summary
Umatilla county": James A. Fee, Judge. Defendants appeal. This is an action to condemn the riparian rights of the appellants in a portion of the waters of Umatilla river under the provisions of the act of the legislative assembly, passed at the session in 1891. (Laws, 1891,52.) The action was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. The only evidence used upon the trial, so far as appears, was an agreement signed by the attorneys of the parties reciting that certain facts were admitted to be true. To that statement was attached sundry exhibits, marked respectively from A to I…
1Opinion of the CourtStrahan, C. J.
The notice of appeal contains twelve assignments of error. All of them, except the sixth, relate entirely to the action of the court upon the trial either in finding or in failing to find certain facts. There was no request to find other than as appears, and no exceptions were taken to the action of the court, either in finding or in refusing to find. The stipulation as to the facts does not take the place of a bill of exceptions. If the court did not find the facts as fully as is recited in the stipulation, the appellants might have moved for additional findings; and if these were refused,…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Kadderly v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Straw v. HarrisOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- In re Willow CreekOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Oklahoma City v. ShieldsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Ellis v. FrazierOregon Supreme Court · 1901
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.