Thayer v. California Development Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. J. W. McKinley, W. B. Mathews, and S. B. Robinson, for W. H. Holabird, Receiver, Appellant. Hunsaker & Britt, and W. N. Goodwin, for Intervener and Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is a proceeding in mandamus, instituted in the superior court of Imperial County on December 20, 1910, to compel the California Development Company a corporation, through its receiver, to deliver to plaintiff C. E. Thayer, the wife of her coplaintiff, W. A. Thayer, out of its central main in Imperial Valley, water to irrigate her lands, upon the theory that the water therein is appropriated and held by it for sale, rental, and distribution generally to the members of that farming neighborhood. Defendants and intervener joined issue on that question. The trial court found with…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Miners' Ditch Co. v. ZellerbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Gilmer v. ThrockmortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Pocantico Water Works Co. v. BirdNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- White v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Bauer v. County of VenturaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Casitas Municipal Water District v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Allen v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.