Legal Opinion

Murray v. Board of County Commissioners

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 15, 1901No. 4060PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to the District Court of Montrose County.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice G-abbert

The contention of plaintiff in error is, that under the facts the Loutsenhizer ditch, by virtue of the provisions of the constitution and laws of the state, is exempt from taxation. The trial court held that it was not. Plaintiff in error claims that the ditch is owned and used by the Loutsenhizer Company and its co-owners exclusively for the purpose of irrigating lands owned by them.

From the pleadings and evidence it appears that the ditch company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of this state, for the purpose of building and maintaining an irrigating ditch. Consumers…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railroad v. DennisSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Empire Land & Canal Co. v. Board of CountySupreme Court of Colorado · 1895

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United Presbyterian Ass'n v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1968
  2. San Luis Power & Water Co. v. TrujilloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1933
  3. Spokane Valley Land & Water Co. v. Kootenai CountyDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1912
  4. Wyoming Central Irrigation Co. v. FarlowWyoming Supreme Court · 1911
  5. City of Denver v. Colorado SeminarySupreme Court of Colorado · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API