Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Calispel Duck Club

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1931No. 23106. Department TwoPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMillard, J.

This action was brought to recover for loss of hay crops for three years alleged to have been sustained by the flooding of one hundred and twenty acres of plaintiffs’ land in Pend Oreille county by waters from defendant’s dam. The trial of the cause to a jury resulted in verdict for four hundred dollars in favor of the plaintiffs. Prom judgment entered on the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Conceding, arguendo, the land of respondents was overflowed as alleged, and hay crops were damaged, appellant contends that it acquired by prescription the right to overflow the respondents ’ land.

There is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Eells v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. St. Martin v. Skamania Boom Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hahn v. CurtisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Diking District No. 2 v. Calispel Duck ClubWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Brock Maslonka v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille Cty.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2022
  4. Brock Maslonka, et ux v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API