Lux v. Haggin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, and from an order refusing a ne# trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
The question being, Can a private corporation divert the waters of a watercourse, and thereby deprive the riparian proprietors of all use of the same, without compensation made or tendered to such proprietors? held:—
1. The owners of land by or through which a watercourse naturally and usually flows have a right of property in the waters of the stream.
2. This property may be taken for a public use, just compensation being first made, or paid into court.
Water to supply “farming neighborhoods” is a public use. And it is for the legislature to determine whether, in the exercise of the power of…
2Cases cited105 opinions
- Pollard's Lessee v. HAGANSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- WILLSON AND OTHERS v. the Black Bird Creek Marsh CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Gibson v. ChouteauSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Hughes v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
100 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by265 opinions
- United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Reichardt v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- People v. California Fish Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
260 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.