Walker v. Lillingston
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
The present litigation arises between conflicting claims to the use of certain waters of a stream. Plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial, and upon that appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact and the rulings of the court upon the admission and rejection of evidence alone will be considered. For it is only upon appeal from the judgment that the sufficiency of the findings becomes material.
The facts are these: Pardee and Richards were riparian -owners of a certain tract of land. They conveyed a part of the land to appellant’s…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Smith v. WornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Currier v. HowesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hall v. Sterling Iron & Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Yocco v. ConroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pabst v. FinmandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Haley v. Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility DistrictDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958
- Parker v. SwettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.