Austin v. City of Bellingham
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for What-com county, Hardin, J., entered February 1, 1912, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action to restrain the flooding of land by the maintenance of a dam.
1Opinion of the CourtChadwick, J.
Lake Whatcom is a navigable body of water, with meandered border. Plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest settled upon lands bordering on the shores of the lake in 1883, and having complied with the public land laws of the United States, patent issued on June 30, 1889.
The city of Whatcom maintains a gravity water system, taking water from the lower end of Lake Whatcom at a point just above its outlet. In order to maintain a proper pressure during the summer months and to insure a greater degree of purity, the city, in April, 1911, put in a mud-sill across the creek bottom and on it put…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Eisenbach v. HatfieldWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Ferry v. County of KingWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Grays Harbor Boom Co. v. LownsdaleWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Washougal & LaCamas Transportation Co. v. Dalles, Portland & Astoria Navigation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
- Burrows v. Grays Harbor Boom Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Riblet v. Spokane-Portland Cement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1954
- State v. SturtevantWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- State ex rel. Ham, Yearsley & Ryrie v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- Newell v. LoebWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- United States v. Pend Oreille Public Utility District No. 1Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.