Swift v. Goodrich
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The action was brought to restrain the defendants from using or diverting the waters of a certain stream. The plaintiffs recovered judgment as prayed for. The further facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice McKinstry.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
The complaint was demurred to on the ground that it did not state a cause of action.
The complaint avers that the plaintiffs and defendants are riparian proprietors,—the lands of defendants lying above those of the plaintiffs, on Bush Creek. And further avers that on the fourth day of March, 1874, Jarvis Swift (predecessor in interest of plaintiffs) and B. T. Dinsmore (grantor of defendants) executed a certain instrument in words and figures as follows:—
“This indenture of lease made and entered into this fourth day of March, A. D. 1874, between Jarvis Swift, the party of the first part, and B.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by6 opinions
- Oliver v. RobnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Heilbron v. 76 Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
- Redemeyer v. CunninghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Custer Consolidated Mines Co. v. City of HelenaMontana Supreme Court · 1912
- Nenzel v. Rochester Silver CorporationNevada Supreme Court · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.