Columbia Mining Co. v. Holter
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from the Third District, Lewis and Clarice County. The facts are stated in the opinion. The judgment was rendered in the district court, at the July term, 1870, by Symes, J. The answer does not deny the allegation of the complaint, that appellant and its grantors, from March 28, 1865, to the .commencement of this action, had enjoyed the water specified.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Third District, Lewis and Clarice County. The facts are stated in the opinion. The judgment was rendered in the district court, at the July term, 1870, by Symes, J. The answer does not deny the allegation of the complaint, that appellant and its grantors, from March 28, 1865, to the .commencement of this action, had enjoyed the water specified. Appellant would be protected in its use for four years 'by the statute of limitations.' Acts 1865, 466;-Union W. Co. v. Crary, 25 Cal. 504; American Co. v. Bradford, 27 id. 360 ; Licit v. Diaz, 30 id. 65. This was an equity case. Cale…
1Opinion of the Court
Wábeen, C. J.
This is an action for damages,for diversion of the waters of the west branch of Oro Pino creek, by defendants, and praying a perpetual injunction against them. The answer does not sufficiently deny, under the well-established rules of pleading, any material allegation of the complaint, but sets up a prior appropriation, by grantors of defendants, under which they justify the diversion.
The cause was tried before a jury, who found a general verdict for defendants, and also a special verdict. Appellant moved the court to set aside the general verdict, and for a judgment and decree…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Middle Creek Ditch Co. v. HenryMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Mettler v. Ames Realty Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1921
- Hague v. Nephi Irrigation Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1898
- East Bench Irr. Co. v. Deseret Irr. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1954
- Head v. HaleMontana Supreme Court · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.