Mitchell v.Amador Canal & Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calaveras County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The findings of the lower court show in substance that the Butte Canal and Ditching Company was incorporated September 19, 1857, to divert the waters of the north fork of the Mokelumne River from a point known as Pine-log Crossing, in Amador County, and by means of ditches, flumes, etc., convey said waters therefrom to Hoodville, and other points south and west of Butte…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calaveras County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The findings of the lower court show in substance that the Butte Canal and Ditching Company was incorporated September 19, 1857, to divert the waters of the north fork of the Mokelumne River from a point known as Pine-log Crossing, in Amador County, and by means of ditches, flumes, etc., convey said waters therefrom to Hoodville, and other points south and west of Butte City, to be used for mining, agricultural, mechanical, and chemical purposes; that the said Butte Canal and Bitching…
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
A full statement of the facts found by the court is filed herewith.
This is an action to determine the title to and recover possession of a canal of great value “formerly known as the Butte ditch, or canal, afterwards called the Amador canal, as the same is now held and used by the defendant, together with all the franchises, and water rights belonging thereto, and all the appurtenances and rights connected therewith,” also to recover the rents, issues, and profits, and damages, "amounting to the sum of one million dollars.
*472Plaintiff claims title to the property under the decree of foreclosure,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sparks v. HessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Nev. Cty. & Sacramento Canal Co. v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Seymour & Brown v. Canandaigua & Niagara Falls Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Davis v. GaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Hawthorne v. SiegelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. Southwest Cotton Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
- Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Inyo Consol. Water Co. v. JessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Hewitt v. StoryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1894
- Hubinger v. Central Trust Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.