Legal Opinion

Bruffey v. Big Timber Creek Canal Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1960No. 9944PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Angstman

This action is one to restrain defendants in the use of water of Big Timber Creek in Sweet Grass County.

*341The case was tried to the court without a jury resulting in findings and judgment in favor of defendants. The appeal is from the judgment and is taken by all plaintiffs except Robert Davis and Walter Papez.

The parties, or their predecessors in interest, were parties in an action entitled Bailey v. Tintinger, 45 Mont. 154, 122 P. 575. In that action the Glass-Lindsay Land Co., predecessor in interest of defendant Company, was awarded 1,000 inches of the waters of Big Timber Creek as of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bailey v. TintingerMontana Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co. v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
  3. Sanderson v. Salmon River Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Bennett v. Twin Falls North Side Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Village of Hailey v. RileyIdaho Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Curry v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Curry v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API