Legal Opinion

Turner v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1914No. Sac. No. 1926PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Frank H. Short, J. W. Knox, and Edward F. Treadwell, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The plaintiffs appeal from the part of the judgment declaring that the defendant “is entitled to divert” from the San Joaquin River, at a point above plaintiff’s land, two hundred and eighty-one cubic feet of water per second, “for sale, rental and distribution, for the irrigation of land and for the watering of stock and domestic uses thereon,” and quieting the title of the defendant to said water “against plaintiffs as the owners of the riparian lands above described.”

The plaintiffs each own a large body of land on and near the San Joaquin River. Other large bodies of land belonging,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Charnock v. HiguerraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Turner v. the James Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Rose v. MesmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Morley Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. Turner v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Turner v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District v. PaulsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API