Legal Opinion

Daly v. Ruddell

California Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 1902No. L.A. Nos. 968, 1022PublishedCited by 18 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

These are separate appeals, the one from the judgment, the other from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. They may, however, be considered together.

Ruddell and the plaintiffs Truesdell were owners of certain water rights. They entered into a contract with Smith, since deceased, whose estate is represented by Daly, administrator and plaintiff, whereby Smith was to furnish and lay certain pipe for the conduct of the water developed and to be developed, in return for which he was to receive a certain proportion of the water thus conveyed during the " dry season of the year.”…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Miller v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Hirshfeld v. WeillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Churchill v. LauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Stark v. WellmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Alexander v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Sanderson v. NiemannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. California Raisin Growers' Ass'n v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Crawford v. FranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Pitt v. MallalieuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Blahnik v. Small Farms Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1919

13 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