Legal Opinion

Walley v. Platte & Denver Ditch Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 15, 1890PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to District Oourt of Arapahoe Goimt/y.

1Opinion of the Court

Richmond, C.

In tbis action plaintiff in error sought to recover damages alleged to have been done to his premises by the waters in the ditches of the defendant companies.

The complaint, answers and replications constitute the pleadings in the action, and the following stipulation was entered into by and between the respective parties:

“ It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties *580to this suit that the title of the premises in the complaint described is in the plaintiff; that the city of Denver was incorporated in 1861, and has ever since remained a corporation, with a city government…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Denver v. KentSupreme Court of Colorado · 1871
  2. Platte & Denver Ditch Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1884
  3. Bailey v. Platte & Denver Canal & Milling Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1888

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Platte & Denver C. & M. Co. v. DowellSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
  2. Muncie & Portland Traction Co. v. Citizens Gas & Oil Mining Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Colorado Midland Railway Co. v. TrevarthenColorado Court of Appeals · 1891
  4. Colorado Midland Railway Co. v. TrevarthenColorado Court of Appeals · 1891
  5. Mutual Irrigation Co. v. Baker CityOregon Supreme Court · 1910

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

Powered by the Exa API