Hufford v. Dye
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County and from an order refusing a new trial. Charles M. Head, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This action involves the ownership and right to the use of the waters of an irrigation ditch commonly known as the “Preadmore" or “Hufford” ditch, taking waters from Oak Run Creek in Shasta County.
The ditch was constructed and the waters appropriated in the 1870’s by one James A. Preadmore. His appropriation notice was for two thousand inches under a four-inch head. The ditch had its head in Oak Run Creek, on what is designated in the evidence as the “Alpaugh Place,” and prolonged in a westerly direction runs across said Alpaugh land about a quarter of a mile, then about half a mile over the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Smith v. HawkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Wiggins v. Muscupiabe Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Smith v. CorbitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by11 opinions
- Casitas Municipal Water District v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Millview County Water District v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Pyramid Land & Stock Co. v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Cundy v. WeberSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
- Stinson Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Lemoore Canal & Irrigation Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.