Legal Opinion

Collins v. Gray

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 9, 1906No. Civ. No. 216PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

In this action defendant was enjoined from interfering with the pipe-line, or the water carried through the same, used by plaintiff in irrigation; from which judgment defendant appeals.

The second amended complaint, which is the only complaint in the record, avers: 1. Ownership by plaintiff as tenant in common of an undivided two-ninths of a certain described pipe-line having an alleged capacity of one hundred inches of water; 2. Facts which, if true, establish an easement in such pipe-lines to the extent of carrying through the same forty inches of water for four days of each month during the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barber v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Hesperia Land & Water Co. v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Dam v. ZinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Abbott v. PondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Easton v. O'ReillyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Star Mill and Lumber Co. v. PorterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  2. Collins v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Dummer v. United States Gypsum Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Dillon v. DillonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Romero v. RomeroSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1924

7 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