Watterson v. Saldunbehere
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mono County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The use of water for domestic purposes and watering cattle are preferred uses; and the defendant had a perfect right to use a portion of the waters of the north fork of the creek for watering his sheep. (Bear River & Auburn W. & Mining Co. v. New York Mining Co., 8 Cal. 327; Washburn on Easements, 223, 224; Ferrea v. Knipe, 28 Cal. 341; Hale v. McLea, 53 Cal. 579; Gould on Waters, sec. 203.) The defendant has the same right to the reasonable use of the waters of the creek for domestic purposes and watering stock as the plaintiff had; and if necessary for those purposes he had the right to…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- De Necochea v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Nev. Cty. & Sacramento Canal Co. v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
- Nielson v. ParkerIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Murray v. TingleyMontana Supreme Court · 1897
- Morris v. BeanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana · 1906
- Town of Antioch v. Williams Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.