Legal Opinion

Wells v. Mantes

California Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1893No. 18137PublishedCited by 29 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, aud from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is an action to restrain appellants from diverting the waters of a certain stream, and thereby depriving plaintiff of the use thereof. The plaintiff, by actual diversion, appropriated two thousand five hundred inches of the water of the stream for the purpose of irrigation. Subsequently defendants, at a point a mile or more above plaintiff’s place of diversion, posted notices in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code, and proceeded to claim and appropriate the waters of the said stream regardless of any rights of plaintiff to such waters obtained by virtue of his actual…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Broder v. Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. De Necochea v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Burrows v. BurrowsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Bailey v. TintingerMontana Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Nielson v. ParkerIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Murray v. TingleyMontana Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Yuba River Power Co. v. Nevada Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

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

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

Powered by the Exa API