Fifield v. Spring Valley Water Works
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. C. B. Hebbard, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
The plaintiff and appellant is the owner of a certain tract of land in San Mateo county, through which the waters of San Mat'eo creek flow in a natural channel. The defendant is a corporation conducting and carrying on the business of supplying the inhabitants of the city and county of San Francisco with water. It is charged in plaintiff’s complaint that defendant is engaged in constructing a tunnel above plaintiff’s land, with the intent and purpose of diverting through said tunnel, when completed, the waters of said creek into the San Andreas reservoir, thereby preventing the same from…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Modoc Land & Live Stock Co. v. BoothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Edgar v. StevensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Heilbron v. 76 Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by23 opinions
- Motl v. BoydTexas Supreme Court · 1926
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Crawford Co. v. HathawayNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.