Legal Opinion

Lower Latham Ditch Co. v. Louden Irrigating Canal Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 15, 1900No. 3920PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to the District Court of Larimer County.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gabbert

Plaintiff in error originally instituted suit against each ditch company separately. In each action the individual defendants were joined. The questions in the several cases being the same, they were consolidated for the purposes of *269trial. Upon the issues formulated there was a trial to the court, which resulted in judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff brings the case here on error. For convenience, the parties will be designated plaintiff and defendants, the same as in the court below.

The object of the action is to compel defendants to recognize the decreed priorities of plaintiff…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
  2. Warren v. AdamsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
  3. Benz v. HinesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1866
  4. De Foresta v. GastSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
  5. Knight v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  2. Wills v. MorrisMontana Supreme Court · 1935
  3. McLean v. Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1908
  4. Jacobs v. PerrySupreme Court of Colorado · 1957
  5. Fort Lyon Canal Co. v. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1907

12 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