Legal Opinion

Churchill v. Lauer

California Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1890No. 13359PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Modoc County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Hayne, C.

This was a suit by ten plaintiffs against eighteen defendants to enjoin the latter from diverting the water of a stream called Pine Creek, in Modoc County. The complaint contains two counts. The first count alleges, in substance, that each plaintiff is the owner in severalty of a described lot of land, and that “ all the said lots of land constitute one complete lot and body of land, and are all irrigated by the same stream of water, and from a common source, and cannot be.irrigated by any other source.” As we construe this count, it alleges that all of the plaintiffs are riparian…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cadigan v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  2. Murray v. HayNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
  3. Blasingame v. Home Ins. Co. of City of N.Y.California Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Heeser v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Heilbron v. FowLer Switch Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1888

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  2. Mitchell v. BainIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Rait v. FurrowSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
  4. Daly v. RuddellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Speyer v. School District No. 1Supreme Court of Colorado · 1927

11 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