Northern California Power Co. v. Flood
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment. The complaint states a cause of action to quiet title of the plaintiff in and to a certain water ditch known as the “Asbury Ditch,” and in and to the right to divert into said ditch from Mill Seat Creek sufficient water to fill the ditch, and the right to use said water for beneficial purposes and carry the water in said ditch and its connecting waterways to the place of use.
The defendant in answer alleged that she was the owner of 160 acres of land and the owner of a right by prescription to use for beneficial purposes thereon one-fourth of the water…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
3Cited by21 opinions
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Texas Water Rights Commission v. WrightTexas Supreme Court · 1971
- Pabst v. FinmandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.