Foreman v. Boyle
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
This is an action for damages for diverting the waters of plaintiffs, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from the further diversion thereof.
Among other things, the complaint, in effect, alleges that” the west branch of Cañón Creek and Cañón Creek were natural watercourses, the waters of the former flowing into the latter; that the plaintiff Foreman owns a tract of land situated upon the west branch of Cañón Creek, and also fifteen inches of the waters of said creek for the purpose of irrigating her said tract of land; that the plaintiff Rogers owns a tract of land situated upon…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Miller v. Highland Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Blaisdell v. StephensNevada Supreme Court · 1879
- Misch v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
- Barham v. HostetterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by14 opinions
- Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Geurkink v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Jellen v. O'BrienCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Lowell v. Pendleton Auto Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Frost v. Alturas Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1905
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.