Hewitt v. San Jacinto & Pleasant Valley Irrigation District
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County. J. S. Noyes, Judge, The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
BRITT, C.
Ruby Hewitt and her husband, H. T. Hewitt, join as plaintiffs in this action to obtain a writ of mandate compelling the defendants to deliver on lands of the wife a flow of ninety ^six and three-sevenths inches of water during the space of forty-eight hours in successive periods of thirty days, when demanded by her, and also to recover damages for previous failure of defendants to supply the water in that manner on 'her request. The defendant San Jacinto Valley Watér Company, a corporation (which for brevity we may designate as the water company), after filing an answer took no…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Robinson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Burns v. Sennett & MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- McCarthy v. Mount Tecarte Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Colman v. ClementsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Thayer v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Knowles v. New Sweden Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Fellows v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- La Mesa, Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District v. HalleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.