Bathgate v. Irvine
California Supreme Court
APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, from an order denying a motion for new trial, and from parts of an order taxing costs. J. W. Towner, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
—Action to quiet the title of plaintiffs, two hundred and seventy-five in number, to the waters of Santiago creek in Orange county, and for an injunction.
Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment, from the order denying motion for new trial, and from certain parts of the order dis allowing plaintiffs’ cost. Defendant appeals from certain parts of this latter order.
Santiago creek takes its rise in high mountain elevations on government land; it flows hy a natural, well-defined channel through and over defendant’s land, comprising about forty-eight thousand acres; thence over and through a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hargrave v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Miller v. Highland Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Vernon Irrigation Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Faulkner v. HendyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Gould v. StaffordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Pabst v. FinmandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.