Rodgers v. Pitt
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada
This is a suit in equity to enjoin tbe diversion of water from a dam and irrigating ditcb of which, complainant is a part owner. Heard on motion for a temporary injunction.
1Opinion of the CourtHawley, District Judge
(orally). Thies, Carpenter, and Eodgers own separate tracts of land in Lovelock Valley. Long prior to Í88S *421the owners of these separate tracts of land had acquired separate rights in various ditches and sloughs, for the purpose of conveying water to irrigate such portions of their lands as could be cultivated, etc. In 1883 they united together for the purpose of obtaining the water necessary to irrigate their respective lands from a common source. To this end they constructed the Marker dam, flume, and ditch, and by means thereof diverted the waters of the Humboldt river to and upon their…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barnes v. SabronNevada Supreme Court · 1875
- Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Lytle Creek Water Co. v. PerdewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by6 opinions
- Miller & Lux v. RickeyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1904
- Rodgers v. PittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1899
- Pitt v. RodgersCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- Beasley v. EngstromIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Rodgers v. PittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.