Broder v. Water Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. The facts of the case and the legislation bearing upon them áre set out in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Mr.- Justice Miller
delivered the opinion of the court.. The Natoma Water and Mining Company owns a canal for conducting water and distributing the same for mining, agricultural, and other uses, which is some fifteen miles long. It was completed in the year 1853, and since then has been in x constant and successful operation under the control and in the possession of the éompany. Its cost was about $200,000. The court of the first instance on the trial of this cause found also as a fact that the canal and. branches have, ever since their construction, been uniformly acknowledged and recognized…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Forbes v. GraceySupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Atchison v. PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Wolcott v. Des Moines Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1867
3Cited by109 opinions
- United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- California v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.