Rio Grande Reservoir & Ditch Co. v. Wagon Wheel Gap Improvement Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to Costilla District Court, Hon. A. Watson McHendrie, Judge.
1DissentGarrigues, C. J.
It is manifest that the rights of plaintiff in error depend upon whether the water in question is a tributary and a part of the flow of the river. The majority opinion can only be sustained upon the assumption that it is a tributary and belongs to the natural flow of the stream. I think, under the evidence, that the disputed water is extraneous to the *446natural or regular flow of the stream, which was only being used as a conduit. Plaintiff does not claim a priority, but seeks recognition from the court and water officials of its rights to the water and the use of the stream as a conduit for…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Comstock v. RamsaySupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
- Butte Canal & Ditch Co. v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Platte Valley Irrigation Co. v. Buckers Irrigation, Milling & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1898
- Wiggins v. Muscupiabe Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Miller v. WheelerWashington Supreme Court · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.