Legal Opinion

Cox v. Clough

California Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 1886No. 9990PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Searls, C.

This is an action to determine the right to the use of the water of certain springs, and of a stream flowing therefrom, situate in the county of San Bernardino.

According to the allegations of the complaint, plaintiffs have a right to the uninterrupted use and flow of five ninths, and the defendants are entitled to the flow and use of four ninths, of the water of San Timoteo Creek, and they pray judgment that they are so entitled, and that defendants be enjoined from interfering with the flow of water five out of every nine days, etc.

Defendants, in addition to other defenses, pleaded…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Davis v. GaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Yankee Jim's Union Water Co. v. CraryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Ross v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. McDonnell v. HuffineMontana Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Oregon Construction Co. v. Allen Ditch Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Faulkner v. RondoniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Hammond v. JohnsonUtah Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Talbott v. Butte City Water Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1903

7 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