Legal Opinion

Hildebrandt v. Montgomery

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1925PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

In this case we must determine whether the water in question was subject to appropriation, and, if so, who was first in time as an appropriator. If the water in these springs was of sufficient quantity to rise to the surface and to flow off in a definite channel with a tendency to regularity, it was subject to appropriation: Brosnan v. Harris, 39 Or. 148 (65 Pac. 867, 87 Am. St. Rep. 649, 54 L. R. A. 628); Morrison v. Officer, 48 Or. 569 (87 Pac. 896); Hayes v. Adams, 109 Or. 51 (218 Pac. 933); Wiel on Water Bights (3 ed.), § 336. Did the flow of water from these springs constitute a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Simmons v. WintersOregon Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Davis v. ChamberlainOregon Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Brosnan v. HarrisOregon Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Hollett v. DavisWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Borman v. BlackmonOregon Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Popham v. HolloronMontana Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Fitzstephens v. WATSONOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Wellman v. Kelley & HarrisonOregon Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Doney v. BeattyMontana Supreme Court · 1950
  5. David v. BrokawOregon Supreme Court · 1927

2 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