Churchill v. Lauer
California Supreme Court
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
- Cadigan v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Murray v. HayNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Blasingame v. Home Ins. Co. of City of N.Y.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Heeser v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Heilbron v. FowLer Switch Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
- Mitchell v. BainIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Rait v. FurrowSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Daly v. RuddellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Speyer v. School District No. 1Supreme Court of Colorado · 1927
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.