Crow v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The action was to recover damages for the refusal on the part of the defendant to furnish water to the plaintiff for the irrigation season of 1896 on tender by him of the regular rates therefor.
1. Defendant does not deny the refusal as alleged, but seeks to justify its action on the ground that the plaintiff was indebted to it for water furnished to him in the years 1893 and 1894; that by the regulations of the company, to which the plaintiff had subscribed, it was made a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Price v. Riverside Land & Irrigating Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
- City of Chicago v. HuenerbeinIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- McCrary v. BeaudryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Muldrow v. NorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
- Merrill v. Southside Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Grupe v. GlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Leavitt v. Lassen Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. PerrinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Rilovich v. RaymondCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.