Legal Opinion

Dyk v. Buell Land Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1924No. 5,479PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Callaway

The plaintiffs, who are stockholders in the Low Line Irrigation Company, divert water for irrigating their lands from the Low Line canal south of the line dividing townships 1 north and 1 south, range 3 east, in Gallatin county. The point of diversion is referred to in the testimony as the Post place. The defendants, except the Low Line Irrigation Company, are stockholders in that company who take water from the canal north of, or below, the Post place. Other stockholders of the company take water from the canal above, while still others not parties to this action take their water below, the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Allen v. PetrickMontana Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Suburban Homes Co. v. NorthMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Verwolf v. Low Line Irrigation Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Hyink v. Low Line Irrigation Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Smith v. ChristeMontana Supreme Court · 1921

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. St. Onge v. BlakelyMontana Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Brady Irrigation Co. v. Teton CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Ackroyd v. Brady Irr. Co.District Court, D. Montana · 1939
  4. Ackroyd v. Winston Bros.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
  5. Rutherford v. Long & Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API