Legal Opinion

Reorganized Catlin Consolidated Canal Co. v. Hinderlider

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 24, 1927No. 11,506PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

A DEMURRER to the amended complaint of plaintiff in error was sustained, it elected to stand, its bill was dismissed and it brings error.

The following are the facts necessary to an understanding of the situation: The plaintiff in error, the Las Animas Consolidated Canal Company, and the Fort Lyon Canal Company, which we shall call the Catlin Company, the Las Animas Company and the Fort Lyon Company respectively, own ditches with headgates in the Arkansas river. The Catlin has the upper, the Las Animas Company the lower, about thirty miles below, and the Fort Lyon is about half way between…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bates v. HallSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Las Animas Consolidated Canal Co. v. HinderliderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1937
  2. People Ex Rel. Board of County Commissioners v. BrownSupreme Court of Colorado · 1933
  3. Kurtz v. Reorganized Catlin Canal Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API