Miller v. Highland Ditch Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order denying a now trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the cóurt.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
Plaintiff was the owner of a tract of land situated about one mile southerly from the San Bernardino range of mountains. . Part of the tract was-in a high state of cultivation. Coming out of said mountains, and trending towards plaintiff's land, but not reaching it, is a canon called Baldridge Cañón. The natural waters of said cañón would not flow upon plaintiff’s land, but, as found by the court, “would spread out on the lower lands without cutting any particular, channel, the tendency of the flow being to spread out over the said lower lands north of plaintiff’s premises and become absorbed…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Chipman v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Sellick v. HallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
- Blaisdell v. StephensNevada Supreme Court · 1879
- Hillman v. NewingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Summers v. TiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Crawford Co. v. HathawayNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Commercial Standard Title Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.