Fell v. M. & T. Incorporated
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPeek, J.
This is an appeal by defendant Maude Mad-drill alone from the judgment of the trial court restraining her and a codefendant Ben Crouch from “permitting irrigation, drainage, overflow and seepage waters produced from wells on the lands of said Maude Maddrill . . . and any and all other waters used on said lands for irrigation that would not otherwise and naturally run in the channel of Little Chico Creek, to run or drain from the lands of the said Maude Mad-drill . . . down through and over said lands of plaintiffs.”
The court found that plaintiffs were the owners of certain lands situated in…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- City of Los Angeles v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Bloss v. RahillyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Stevens v. Oakdale Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Poole v. OlavesonIdaho Supreme Court · 1960
- United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility DistrictDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1951
- Cheesman v. OdermottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Phillips v. BurkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Modesto Properties Co. v. State Water Rights BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.