Legal Opinion

Roberts v. Krafts

California Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 1903No. L.A. No. 1144PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. 1

1Opinion of the Court

LORIGAN, J.—This

is an action to recover damages for breach of a covenant relative to certain water-rights. Plaintiff obtained judgment for nine thousand dollars, and defendants appeal from the judgment and from the order denying their motion for a new trial. The general features of the case, as gathered from the findings, are that prior to 1887, and up to the commencement of this action, plaintiff was the owner of one hundred acres of land in San Bernardino County, in proximity to a stream known as Mill Creek, which tract was, to a large extent, set out in orchards, and plaintiff and his…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Vineland Irrigation District v. Azusa Irrigating Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Mabb v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Churchill v. RoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Beck v. Pasadena Lake Vineyard Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Yarwood v. West Los Angeles Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Reno v. RichardsIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Tittle Guarantee & Tr. Co. v. Fraternal Fin. Co.California Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Cucamonga County Water District v. Southwest Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  4. Garvey Water Co. v. Huntington Land & Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Sonja Nicolle ColbertUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 2022

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API