Schirmer v. Drexler
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. Jo D. Sproul, F. C. Lusk, W. H. H. Hart, and Aylett R. Cotton, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the Court
GRAY, C.
This action was brought to obtain an injunction against further interference with certain water rights of plaintiff and for damages for previous interferences. The defendants appeal from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor and from an order denying a new trial.
The complaint alleges title and possession in plaintiff of certain described tracts of land, and “that for more thah sixteen years last past, and up to the time of filing the com plaint herein, the plaintiff, Edward Schirmer, and his grantor, have been, and he is now, the owner and in the possession of . . . the right to use…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Riverside Water Co. v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Reed v. NortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Green v. ChandlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Morenhout v. BarronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Murdock v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by20 opinions
- Panopulos v. MaderisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Lavely v. NonemakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Barton v. OwenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Feig v. Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.