Churchill v. Russell
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This action is brought to restrain the defendants from diverting the waters of Butte Creek, in Siskiyou County. There is no question in the case but that the predecessor in title of the lands to which said water-right is appurtenant, Charles B. Boyes, as early as 1877 appropriated for purposes of irrigation the waters of said stream to the extent of one thousand inches, measured under a four-inch pressure, which is practically the full flow of said stream in the irrigation season, and that the appellant succeeded to said water-right by purchase from the original proprietor of the Boyes ranch…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Flickinger v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hayes v. FineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Blankenship v. WhaleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by9 opinions
- The Texas Co. v. BurkettTexas Supreme Court · 1927
- Hunter v. SparlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Stepp v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Irrigated Valleys Land Co. v. AltmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Laughton v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.