Paige v. Rocky Ford Canal & Irrigation Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion rendered on the 13th of July, 1889.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
We granted a rehearing in this case after affirmance of the judgment of the superior court, because we were in doubt whether there was not a fatal conflict in the findings as to appellant’s claim of prescriptive right to maintain the dam in the south fork of Pack-wood Creek, and to divert the waters of the creek through its canal. After the reargument, and a careful re-examination of the findings, we are satisfied that they are entirely consistent. They are not so clearly expressed as they might have been upon one or two points; but reading them and construing them all together,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Butte Canal & Ditch Co. v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Ford v. WhitlockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Hoffman v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Pingry v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- Wilcox v. HauschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Chowchilla Farms Inc. v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Miller v. WheelerWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Beaverhead Canal Co. v. Dillon Electric Light & Power Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1906
- Cloyes v. Middlebury Electric Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1907
- Seneca Consol. Gold Mines Co. v. Great Western Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.