State ex rel. Krutz v. Washington Irrigation Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Yakima county, Rudkin, J., entered December 14, 1904, upon sustaining an objection to the introduction of testimony and withdrawing the case from the jury, denying an application for a writ of mandate to compel an irrigation company to deliver water.
1Opinion of the CourtHadley, J.
This is an action in mandamus. The affidavit in support of the application for the writ states, that the Washington Irrigation Company is a corporation, and *284is the owner of an irrigating canal, commonly known as “Sunnyside” canal; that it is a common carrier of water for irrigation purposes, and is charged with the duty of furnishing water for irrigation of lands lying under said canal, upon reasonable compensation being tendered and made therefor; that the relator is the owner of certain described lands - lying under said canal, amounting to three hundred and twenty acres, more or less,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pearce v. Madison & Indianapolis RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- The Board of Commr's of Knox County v. AspinwallSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- United States Ex Rel. Redfield v. WindomSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad v. State ex rel. MayorSupreme Court of Florida · 1893
- Price v. Riverside Land & Irrigating Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Washington ex rel. City of Seattle v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1924
- State Ex Rel. Schoblom v. Anacortes Veneer, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1953
- State Ex Rel. Schoblom v. Anacortes Veneer, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1953
- State v. Twin Falls Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Washington ex rel. Ellis v. General Fruit Corp.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1933