Pacific Rolling Mill Co. v. Bear Valley Irrigation Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County and from an order denying a new trial. John L. Campbell, Judge. The facts arc stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
The defendant, Bear Valley Irrigation Company, was incorporated under the laws of this state for the purpose of engaging in very many kinds of business. Among other of its undertakings was that of constructing a canal or aqueduct, *95called “Santa Ana canal,” from a point on the Santa Ana river, known as the company’s head works, through what is called Blair’s Pass, to the Alessandro & Perris Irrigation districts, in Biverside county. The entire proposed line of canal comprised what are termed in the transcript divisions 1, 2, 3, and 4. The work of construction began about December,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Canal Co. v. GordonSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Brooks v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Willamette Steam Mills Co. v. KremerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Midland Railway Co. v. WilcoxIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Helm v. ChapmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Granquist v. Western Tube Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1909
- Deiner v. SutermeisterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- Kosidowski v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Bank of Woodland v. HeronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. North Platte Valley Irr. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.