Southern California Investment Co. v. Wilshire
California Supreme Court
APPEAL fro-m a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County and from an order denying a new trial. John L. Campbell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Byron Waters, and Waters & Wylie, and W. S. Goodfellow, for Appellant. Curtis & Otis, George Otis, W. J. Curtis, and Otis & Gregg, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The complaint states a cause of action to quiet the alleged title of plaintiff to the use of all the waters of a certain stream in San Bernardino County known as Edgar Creek. The answer denies plaintiff’s title and sets forth the title of defendants. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
Upon the appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, plaintiff assigns as error the insufficiency of the evidence to justify several of the findings. Upon an examination of the record we find that there is sufficient evidence tending to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kidd v. LairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Hargrave v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- North Fork Water Co. v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Moore v. Clear Lake Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Heilbron v. FowLer Switch Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
- City of Santa Maria v. AdamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- City of Los Angeles v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.