Smith v. Logan
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. Upon a rehearing, the court ordered that its previous decision should be modified. The opinion, as here published, contains the modification and change directed by the court. The facts áre sufficiently stated in the opinion. I. The court erred in dismissing the corporation as a party defendant after it had answered.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. Upon a rehearing, the court ordered that its previous decision should be modified. The opinion, as here published, contains the modification and change directed by the court. The facts áre sufficiently stated in the opinion. I. The court erred in dismissing the corporation as a party defendant after it had answered. It was an indispensable party to the proper determination of the rights of the parties to the use of the waters of said stream. (Dicey on Parties, 322-4; 2 Sawyer 455.) If plaintiff gave consent to the…
1Opinion of the Court
J3y tbe Court,
Belknap, J.:
This suit is brought for the purpose of determining the relative rights of the parties hereto to the waters of Steamboat creek. Their rights, whatever they may be, are based upon appropriations made by themselves and their predecessors in interest.
•The joint answer of the defendants sets forth that a corporation known as the Eldorado Wood & Flume Company, is a necessary party defendant to the action, by reason of the fact that it was and theretofore had been, under claim of right, diverting permanently away from the natural channel all of the waters of the creek. The…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Franktown Creek Irrigation Co. v. Marlette Lake Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1961
- Scherck v. NicholsWyoming Supreme Court · 1939
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.