Legal Opinion

South Tule Independent Ditch Co. v. King

California Supreme Court

Decided August 18, 1904No. Sac. No. 1062PublishedCited by 19 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

COOPER, C.

Plaintiff brought this action to establish its prior right against defendants to divert and use thirteen cubic feet of water per second from zTule River, in Tulare County, and to enjoin defendants from interfering with said diversion, and with plaintiff’s dam at the head of its ditch in said river, by means of which it diverts said water. Defendants had judgment, and this appeal is from the judgment on a bill of exceptions. There is no conflict here, except as to the prior right of defendants to divert one half cubic foot of water per second from said river.

Defendants are husband…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CrowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Lower Kings River Water Ditch Co. v. Kings River & Fresno Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Dunn v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
  4. Shepard v. Heirs of CummingsTexas Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Bradley v. HarknessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Leeper v. BeltramiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Cox v. SchnerrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Wright v. BestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Rank v. KrugDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1950

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