Hudson v. West
California Supreme Court
Hughes, Maul & Fogerty and Geoffrey A Hughes for Respondents.
1ConcurrenceCarter, J.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance and in the reasoning in the majority opinion with the exception of the inference which might be drawn therefrom that a *832riparian right may be pleaded by simply alleging the ownership of land situated on a natural stream or watercourse and the ownership of a water right from said stream as being appurtenant to said land. It is my opinion that such a pleading would not be sufficient to raise an issue of riparian ownership or the existence of a riparian right. (See Riverside Water Co. v. Gage, 89 Cal. 410, 420 [26 P. 889] ; Wutchumna Water Co. v. Pogue, 151…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- City of Pasadena v. City of AlhambraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
- Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.