Legal Opinion

Tanner v. Provo Bench Canal & Irrigation Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1911No. 2164PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from District Court, Fourth District; Hon. J. F. Ohidesber, Judge. Action by Caleb Tanner against the Provo Bench Canal and Irrigation Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtFrick, C. J.

The respondent instituted this proceeding to obtain permission to enlarge certain irrigating canals or ditches belonging to appellants. The proceeding is grounded on Comp. Laws 1907, section 1288x22, which reads as follows: “When any person, corporation, or association desires to convey water for irrigation or for any other beneficial purpose, and there is a canal or ditch already constructed that can be enlarged to convey the required quantity of water, then such person, corporation, or association, or the owner or owners of the land through which a new canal or ditch would have to be…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. In Re Vil. of Olean v. . SteynerNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  3. Nash v. ClarkUtah Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Utah v. Oregon S. L. R.Utah Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Utah State Road Commission v. FribergUtah Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Nielson v. SandbergUtah Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Canyon View Irrigation Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Monetaire Mining Co. v. Columbus Rexall Consol. Mines Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Simonson v. McDonaldMontana Supreme Court · 1957

14 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