Ball v. Kehl
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
The object of this action is perpetually to enjoin the defendant from closing a certain waste-gate in his canal during all such times as he may not be using the water flowing in the canal for the purpose of propelling his grist-mill, —the plaintiff claiming a prescriptive right to divert the water from the canal through the waste-gate, for the purpose of irrigating his land, whenever the water is not being used by defendant for the purpose of propelling his mill.
It is alleged in the complaint that about thirty years before the commencement of this action, the grantors of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cave v. CraftsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Smith v. O'haraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- People ex rel. Heyneman v. BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Parks Canal & Mining Co. v. HoytCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Wimer v. SimmonsOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Janke v. McMahonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Conaway v. ToogoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Vaughan v. KolbOregon Supreme Court · 1929
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.