Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. McKnight v. District Court

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1941No. 8,191Published

1DissentJustice Angstman

It is my opinion that the district court was correct in making the order complained of. I concede that a decree in a water right suit is res adjudicada only upon the parties to the action, and their successors, and that it is not binding upon those who were not made parties unless they make their appropriation after the decree. (See. 7128, Eev. Codes.) In such a situation, however, our statute provides a remedy for the person not made a party. This is found in section 7124.1, Eevised Codes, which provides: “At any time after the entry of any decree, any person, not a party to such decree,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Farmers Independent Ditch Co. v. Agricultural Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1896
  2. People v. MahatchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Weiland v. Reorganized Catlin Consolidated Canal Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1916
  4. State Ex Rel. Swanson v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API