Sumner Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Pacific Coast Power Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Card, J., entered May 25, 1912, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to enjoin a power company from diverting the waters of a river.
1Opinion of the CourtMorris, J.
The respondent company operates a shingle mill near the mouth of the Stuck river. In connection with its mill it maintains a boom, and has included in its boom plat filed with the secretary of state all of the Stuck river, and the White river from its union with the Stuck river up beyond Buckley. The Pacific Coast Power Company maintains a large electric power plant near Dieringer. To obtain water for generating this power, it has obtained, through the purchase of riparian lands or the acquirement of water ■rights, all of the riparian rights (except as to one small piece that will be…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Moore v. SanborneMichigan Supreme Court · 1853
- Dumont v. KelloggMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Griffith v. HolmanWashington Supreme Court · 1900
- Brown v. ChadbourneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Olson v. MerrillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Big Bend Transit Co.District Court, E.D. Washington · 1941
- Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Puget Sound Power & Light Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981