Maple Orchard Grove & Vineyard Co. v. Marshall
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the First District Court, Box Elder county. — How. II. H. Rolapp, Judge. Action to restrain the defendant from interfering with a certain pipe line owned by the plaintiff company and with the water flowing through it to the plaintiff’s premises. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBartch, J.
This is an action in equity to restrain the defendant from interfering with a certain pipe line owned by the plaintiff company, and with the water flowing through it to the plaintiff’s premises. The appeal is from the judgment roll, and the evidence is not before us, but from the findings of fact it appears that the plaintiff is the owner of certain land, which it has cultivated and improved. For the purpose of irrigating the land, cultivating an orchard, and raising crops, the company constructed a pipe line, crossing in its c'ourse land owned by the defendant, which he purchased from one…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Yunker v. NicholsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1872
- Huff v. McCauleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Schilling v. RomingerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1878
- Flickinger v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Wickersham v. OrrSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rentfro v. DettwilerMontana Supreme Court · 1933
- Gustin v. HartingWyoming Supreme Court · 1912
- Kennedy v. Combined Metals Reduction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1935
- Davis v. TwayArizona Supreme Court · 1915