Legal Opinion

Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1903No. L.A. Nos. 1113, 1256PublishedCited by 53 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

These appeals arise out of the same action. No. 1113 is an appeal by the defendant from an order refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction, and No. 1256 is an appeal by the defendant from the final judgment, taken within sixty days after its rendition, and presenting as the record on appeal the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions containing the evidence. The two appeals will be considered together.

The sufficiency of the complaint is attacked by a general demurrer and by the motion to dissolve the injunction. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gilmer v. ThrockmortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. Pocantico Water Works Co. v. BirdNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Price v. Riverside Land & Irrigating Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Merrill v. Southside Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Schirmer v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Thayer v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Arnold v. American Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Leavitt v. Lassen Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Barton v. Riverside Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1909

48 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