Umatilla Irrigation Co. v. Umatilla Improvement Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
Umatilla county; James A. Fee, Judge.” Defendants appeal. This is a suit brought in the circuit court for Umatilla county by the above named respondent against the appellants and defendants under the provisions of the act of the legislative assembly, dated the eighteenth day of February, 1891, commonly known as the irrigation law.
Read the full summary
Umatilla county; James A. Fee, Judge.” Defendants appeal. This is a suit brought in the circuit court for Umatilla county by the above named respondent against the appellants and defendants under the provisions of the act of the legislative assembly, dated the eighteenth day of February, 1891, commonly known as the irrigation law. The respondents, and the appellants, the Blue Mountain Irrigation & Improvement Company, the Rauch Irrigation Company, the Oliver Ditch Company, and the Valley Irrigation Company, all claim or are charged to be private corparations, organized under the laws of this…
1Opinion of the CourtStrahan, C. J.
This is not a suit to determine an adverse claim to real property, within the meaning of section 504, Hill’s Code. That section provides: “Any person in possession by himself or his tenant of real property, may maintain a suit in equity against another who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such claim, estate, or interest.” The slightest reference to this section is sufficient to show that the jurisdiction which the plaintiff invokes is not conferred by it. If a court of equity has the jurisdiction which was assumed in this case, it is not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Keller v. City of Corpus ChristiTexas Supreme Court · 1879
- Matter of Water Com'rs of AmsterdamNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. WiltseIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
- Belcher Sugar Refining Co. v. St. Louis Grain Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tanner v. Provo Reservoir Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1931