Vineland Irrigation District v. Azusa Irrigating Co.
California Supreme Court
The notice of appropriation of the Azusa Water and Development Company was posted at a point which became the mouth of a “development tunnel,” and claimed “the water here flowing in the channel of the San Gabriel river to the extent of five thousand inches,” et cetera, and stated that “the means by which it is intended to divert said water is by bedrock and surface dam, or both, tunnel, ditch, iron pipe, and flume, or any or other of such means as may be found most…
Read the full summary
The notice of appropriation of the Azusa Water and Development Company was posted at a point which became the mouth of a “development tunnel,” and claimed “the water here flowing in the channel of the San Gabriel river to the extent of five thousand inches,” et cetera, and stated that “the means by which it is intended to divert said water is by bedrock and surface dam, or both, tunnel, ditch, iron pipe, and flume, or any or other of such means as may be found most practicable,” and stated the size of the tunnel, the size of the iron pipe, and the size of the flume, and how the bedrock and…
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
—Plaintiff sued as an appropriator of a part of the subterranean flow of the San Gabriel river to restrain the defendants, who are also appropriators of the waters of the same stream, from changing their place and manner of diversion to the plaintiff’s injury. The defendants, who are very numerous, made answer, and, _ without particularizing their pleadings, it will be sufficient, speaking of them collectively, to say that they asserted a right to all of the waters of the stream prior and superior to that of plaintiff, both as appropriators and as owners of riparian lands. By cross-complaint…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hanson v. McCueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- City of Emporia v. SodenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Painter v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- McClellan v. HurdleColorado Court of Appeals · 1893
- Cross v. KittsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. Southwest Cotton Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
- Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Barton v. Riverside Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- McClintock v. HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.