Oneto v. Restano
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order refusing a new-trial. ■ The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
— Suit to determine the right to certain water. The trial court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.
The subject-matter of the suit, as defined by the complaint, is the water of a certain spring, which the predecessor of the plaintiff conducted through a flume or ditch, across the land of the predecessor of the defendant to his own land. The answer hints at other water coming through the same flume or ditch. And the findings set forth the fact. For while it is found that one Joseph Bache, the plaintiff’s predecessor, was the owner of the spring, it is also found…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Unger v. MooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Biddel v. BrizzolaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Heilbron v. Last Chance Water Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Emmal v. WebbCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Checketts v. ThompsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1944
- Glatts v. HensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Worthley v. BurbanksIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Silva v. HawnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Churchill v. LouieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.