Crandall v. Woods
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, County of Eevada. This was an action for damages and a perpetual injunction on the part of the Union Water Company against Woods and wife, and Andrew Jamieson, for the diversion of water claimed by plaintiff. The defendants Woods disclaimed, while the defendant Jamieson justified, bis right to the water.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, County of Eevada. This was an action for damages and a perpetual injunction on the part of the Union Water Company against Woods and wife, and Andrew Jamieson, for the diversion of water claimed by plaintiff. The defendants Woods disclaimed, while the defendant Jamieson justified, bis right to the water. The facts were as follows : In the year 1850, the defendants Woods were in the possession of a tract of government land that contained several springs of running water, which, after running a short distance through their…
1Opinion of the Court
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the .Court—Burnett, J., concurring.
The only question involved in this case is, whether a party who locates upon and appropriates public lands belonging to the *141United States, is entitled to the use of streams and water-courses naturally flowing through such lands, as against persons subsequently appropriating and using the waters of said streams. By the common law, the proprietor of lands upon the banks of a water-course owns to the middle of the stream, and the proprietor of the lands through which the stream flows is held to be the owner of the bed of…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.