Wintle v. Utah-Idaho Sugar Co.
Utah Supreme Court
1DissentStraup, J.
I dissent.
As is seen under the contract, the respondent was to furnish the assignor of the plaintiff sufficient water to irrigate 30.66 particularly described acres of land, not to exceed one cubic foot per second flow for each 80 acres and proportionately for any greater or less number of acres, which waters were to be used by the plaintiff’s assignor only on such described lands, and “not elsewhere.” The 30.66 acres were a part of a tract of 41.63 acres owned by plaintiff’s assignor. During the irrigation season in question, the assignor admittedly used the water furnished him by the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wright v. Platte Valley Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1900
- Mullin v. Pennsylvania R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Eastern Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Minneapolis Mill Co. v. HobartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879