Legal Opinion

McGillivray v. Evans

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1864PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Ninth Judicial District, Trinity County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Sawyer, J.

This is an action for the partition of the water of a mining ditch, admitted to be owned by the parties as tenants in common. The three defendants are entitled to the first flow of twenty inches when the water is high, which, the Court finds, is to be measured without pressure. But in the summer, when the water is low, they are entitled to the first flow of one fourth of the whole, provided one fourth does not exceed twenty inches. The plaintiff is entitled to two fifths, and the defendants to three fifths of the remainder, after the twenty inches, or the one fourth at…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Smith v. SmithNew York Court of Chancery · 1843

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Lenfers v. HenkeIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  2. East Shore Co. v. Richmond Belt RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. LEG INVESTMENTS v. BoxlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. Hill v. GroundMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
  5. Allard v. CarletonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885

1 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