South Boulder & R. C. Ditch Co. v. Marfell
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from District Cowrt of Boulder County. This cause was tried, on an agreed statement of facts. Appellees, including Mitchell, were consumers of water from appellant’s ditch.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Cowrt of Boulder County. This cause was tried, on an agreed statement of facts. Appellees, including Mitchell, were consumers of water from appellant’s ditch. Mitchell made with appellant the following instrument of writing: “ State of Colorado, County of Boulder — ss.: This agreement, made and entered into this 5th day of June, 1880, by and between the South Boulder and Bock Creek Ditch Company, of the one part, and Joseph Mitchell, of the other part, witnesseth: That the said company, for and in consideration of the sum of $1, to it paid by the said Joseph Mitchell, the…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Helm
' The determination of this controversy depends upon our construction of the instrument executed by the carrier (appellant) with its consumers. Bor present purposes it is only necessary to consider the following principal features of the writing in question: First, the affirmative promise by appellant to deliver to its consumer a certain quantity of water annually, upon the annual payment of the specified consideration therefor; and second, the nature and extent of the penalty affixed to the consumer’s failure or omission to make this payment and receive the water.
It will be observed that, in…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Leavitt v. Lassen Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Matthews v. Tri-County Water Conservancy DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1980
- City of Denver v. BrownSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
- Faught v. Platte Valley Public Power & Irrigation DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1952
- Northern Colorado Irrigation Co. v. PouppirtColorado Court of Appeals · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.