Legal Opinion

Price v. Riverside Land & Irrigating Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880No. 6,036PublishedCited by 38 opinions

Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Eighteenth District Court, County of San Bernardino. McNeaLY, J.

1Opinion of the Court

McKinstry, J.:

The purposes for which defendant was incorporated, as set forth in its articles, were : “ To buy, own, occupy, improve, and sell or otherwise dispose of any lands and real estate in the State of California, and any personal property; to acquire and hold .any water rights and privileges, and to use and dispose of the same; to conduct and maintain ditches and canals, and all easements and rights appertaining thereto, for the purpose of taking and conveying water for irrigation, milling, manufacturing, or other purposes; to make, purchase, maintain, hold, and use all dams,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. Hartford & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
  2. Fremont v. CrippenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1887
  3. Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Leavitt v. Lassen Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  5. State ex rel. Star Publishing Co. v. Associated PressSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API