Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Wood
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada. The facts of this case differ from those upon which the case of Rickey Land & Cattle Company v. Miller & Lux (just decided) 152 Fed. 11, proceeded, only in that, in the original suit of Miller & Lux v. Rickey et al., the present appellees, being codefendants with Rickey in that suit, filed cross-bills therein, whereby they claimed to be entitled to certain appropriations of water from Walker river…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada. The facts of this case differ from those upon which the case of Rickey Land & Cattle Company v. Miller & Lux (just decided) 152 Fed. 11, proceeded, only in that, in the original suit of Miller & Lux v. Rickey et al., the present appellees, being codefendants with Rickey in that suit, filed cross-bills therein, whereby they claimed to be entitled to certain appropriations of water from Walker river for use upon their lands — the diversions being made and the lands being situated in the state of Nevada; and it was…
1Opinion of the CourtWolverton, District Judge
(after stating the facts). The single question urged here, in addition to those determined in the case of Rickey Land & Cattle Company v. Miller & Lux, 152 Fed. 11, is *23whether the appellees have a standing in court whereby to maintain their cross-bills as against the appellant. The appellant and the appel-lees are all codefendants in the cause of Miller & Lux v. Rickey et al., and all citizens of the state of Nevada; and in their cross-bills, it will be seen, the appellees do not dispute the right of diversion by Miller & Lux, nor claim that its diversions are in any way subordinate to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ayres v. CarverSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Stuart v. HaydenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Cross v. De ValleSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
- Ex Parte Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Barnett v. MayesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1930
- City of Fresno v. EdmonstonDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1955
- United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Williams v. NeddoIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
- Portland Wood Pipe Co. v. Slick Bros. Const.District Court, D. Idaho · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.