Legal Opinion

Crescent Canal Co. v. Montgomery

California Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1904No. S.F. No. 2758PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.

The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California for the purpose of diverting water from Kings River by means of a canal and conveying it to the owners of adjacent lands for irrigation, domestic uses, etc. The main canal, which is a large one, carrying two hundred and fifty cubic feet of water per second, was constructed prior to the year 1887, and, as first laid out, headed in the river at a point on section 5 of a certain township. In 1887 Poyser and Johns were owners of about four hundred and eighty acres in the adjoining section 4 of the same…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crescent Canal Co. v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Southern California Railway Co. v. SlausonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Barton v. Riverside Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Conaway v. Yolo Water & Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
  5. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. WorswickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

12 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