State Ex Rel. Blossom v. Horton
Nevada Supreme Court
Original application for a writ of mandate. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. I. The amendatory act of March 7, 1889, by implication repeals sections one and six of the original act. (My v. Holton, 15 N. T. 595; O. P. R. R. Go. v. Shackelford, 63 Gal. 261.) II. The amendatory act contemplates the payment of bounties for an entirely different class of wells from those provided for in the original act.
Read the full summary
Original application for a writ of mandate. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. I. The amendatory act of March 7, 1889, by implication repeals sections one and six of the original act. (My v. Holton, 15 N. T. 595; O. P. R. R. Go. v. Shackelford, 63 Gal. 261.) II. The amendatory act contemplates the payment of bounties for an entirely different class of wells from those provided for in the original act. Neither the purpose for which they were sunk nor the depth of wells was material under the original act, but bounty wells under the amendatory act must be sunk for stock or…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Murphy, J.:
An act of the legislature was approved March 5, 1887 (Stat. 1887, 13.119), entitled “An act to encourage the sinking of artesian wells.” The first section reads as follows: “ Every person, firm, company, corporation or association that shall, after the passage of this act, commence the sinking of artesian wells, shall be entitled for sinking such artesian well, where flowing water is obtained, the sum of one dollar and twenty-five cents per foot, to be paid in the manner provided for in section 4 of this act; provided, that no bounty shall be paid on any well which…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People ex rel. Parsons v. Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Kamerick v. CastlemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Davis v. ClausenWashington Supreme Court · 1907
- Mudgett v. LiebesWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- City of Reno v. StoddardNevada Supreme Court · 1917