Hoyt v. Hart
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The plaintiff prosecutes two separate appeals, one from the judgment, and one from an order denying a motion for new trial. Both may be considered in a single opinion.
The plaintiff and the defendant are owners of adjoining tracts of agricultural land in Siskiyou County, plaintiff’s holding lying to the west of defendant’s. On the easterly side of the defendant’s land there runs an irrigating ditch, variously designated in the record as the “Miller, Hoyt and Casedy Ditch” and as the “Burgess Ditch,” and each of the parties claims an interest in a portion of the waters flowing through it. The…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Blochman v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Sierra Union Water & Mining Co. v. WolffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Schmidt v. KlotzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Gibson v. HammangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Morrison v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
- Colegrove Water Co. v. City of HollywoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Tacoma Safety Deposit Co. v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1910
- Hays v. De AtleyMontana Supreme Court · 1923
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.