Legal Opinion

Comstock v. Fort Morgan Reservoir & Irrigation Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 6, 1915No. Nos. 7867, 7874PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Morgan District Court. Hon. H. P. Burke, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtGabbert, C. J.

At the time the actions were commenced, and from that date down to the time they were tried and judgments rendered, there was an abundance of water flowing in the stream to supply all priorities. The effect of the judgments requiring the defendant companies to restore the water impounded in their respective reservoirs to the stream, at such time during the year 1912, under the direction of the State and Division Engineers, as it should be needed and demanded by consumers of water having priorities senior to those of the companies in Water District No. 1, was to bring about a situation, which…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Farmers Independent Ditch Co. v. Agricultural Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1896
  2. McLean v. Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1908
  3. Medano Ditch Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1902
  4. Lower Latham Ditch Co. v. Louden Irrigating Canal Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1900
  5. Greeley & Loveland Irrigation Co. v. Farmers Pawnee Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1915

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Holter v. Moore and Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Olney Springs Drainage District v. AucklandSupreme Court of Colorado · 1928
  3. People v. HigginsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  4. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. RichSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981
  5. Holbrook Irr. Dist. v. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API