From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Judkins v. Elliott

Supreme Court of California
Aug 30, 1886
2 Cal. Unrep. 697 (Cal. 1886)

Opinion

          In bank. Appeal from superior court, county of Sierra.

          Action for damages for diversion of water to the use of which the plaintiff claimed to be entitled, and for an injunction against further use of the water by defendant. It appears that plaintiff had appropriated water upon the public lands of the United States before any private claim to the land had been made. Defendant subsequently acquired title to the land upon which the water rose, and through which it flowed to plaintiff’s lands, and diverted the same, to plaintiff’s injury.          COUNSEL

          [2 Cal.Unrep. 698] M. Farley and R. H. Lindsay, for appellant.

          Van Clief & Wehe, for respondent.


          OPINION

          THE COURT.

          The case shows that the water in controversy, while situate upon public land of the United States, was appropriated by the plaintiff prior to acquisition by defendant of any right or title from the government to the land upon which the water is situate.

          Judgment and order affirmed.


Summaries of

Judkins v. Elliott

Supreme Court of California
Aug 30, 1886
2 Cal. Unrep. 697 (Cal. 1886)
Case details for

Judkins v. Elliott

Case Details

Full title:JUDKINS v. ELLIOTT.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 30, 1886

Citations

2 Cal. Unrep. 697 (Cal. 1886)
2 Cal. Unrep. 697

Citing Cases

McCallion v. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Society

As to the third finding, there appears to have been no conflict in the evidence upon which it is founded. The…

Aylesworth v. Dean

COUNSEL           [2 Cal.Unrep. 697] A. L. Shinn, E. T. Hogan, and W. W. Kellogg, for defendant and…