Ball v. Kehl
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendant had by means of a canal appropriated the waters of a certain creek for the purpose of *506operating a mill owned by him, and that, subject to the use and right to use said water by the defendant, the plaintiff has for twelve years last past appropriated and used adversely to defendant, for irrigation, agricultural, and domestic purposes, the water so flowing in said canal whenever the said mill was not being run; that upon August 10, 1888, while the said mill was not running, the defendant without right deprived plaintiff of the use of said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tuolumne Water Co. v. ChapmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Coker v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hannah v. PogueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Mendelson v. McCabeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Russell v. DouvanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Wright v. Bd. of Pub . Works of L.A.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Bernard v. WeaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913