Quirk v. Falk
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Oóurt of the Second Judicial District, Gounty of Plumas. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
The plaintiff alleges, that he is the owner of a certain water ditch, known as the Ohio Water Ditch; that by means of it, he and his grantors, since 1852, have continuously diverted and appropriated all the waters of Burg Creek, and that while he was such owner, the defendants diverted the water of Burg Creek from the ditch, and threaten to continue to divert the same. He prays for an injunction to restrain the defendants from further diverting such waters, and for a judgment for the damages sustained by the diversion complained of. The defendants had judgment.
It was…
2Cited by7 opinions
- McShane v. CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Bullard v. McArdleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Roman Catholic Archbishop v. ShipmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Lalakea v. Hawaiian Irrigation Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1944
- Mitchell v.Amador Canal & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.