Legal Opinion

Merrill v. Southside Irrigation Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1896No. L. A. No. 112PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying a new trial. Walter Van Dyke, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Searls, C.

Mandamus proceeding to compel the defendant, a corporation, to furnish to plaintiff water to irrigate plaintiff’s land, to wit-: the west one-half of the southeast quarter of section 2L, etc., to the extent of one-half the flow of a twenty-two-inch round pipe, twice per month, for thirty-six hours each time, once on or about the first day of each month, and once on or about the fifteenth day of each month, upon tender by plaintiff to the defendant of the reasonable and customary charges for said water.

Plaintiff had judgment in consonance with the prayer of her petition. The appeal…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Price v. Riverside Land & Irrigating Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
  2. People v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  3. City of Fresno v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
  4. McCrary v. BeaudryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Thayer v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  4. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Fellows v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API