Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.
MILLER & LUX, INCORPORATED, AND THE SAN JOAQUIN AND KINGS RIVER CANAL AND IRRIGATION COMPANY, INCORPORATED v. ENTERPRISE CANAL AND LAND COMPANY, and J. G. JAMES COMPANY, and JAMES CANAL COMPANY, and JEFFERSON J. GRAVES and WALKER C. GRAVES Jr., Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Jefferson G. James
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Frederick W. Henshaw (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Henshaw
HENSHAW, J.
The foregoing statement materially shortens the consideration of this appeal. The nature of it has been outlined. It is a request upon the part of the court to overthrow the decisions previously considered and the decisions of Miller & Lux v. Madera C. & I. Co., 155 Cal. 59 [99 Pac. 502], and Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co., 157 Cal. 256, [107 Pac. 115], and to decree that notwithstanding the injury to the freehold of the respondents worked by the diversion, the appellants may still divert waters from the,San Joaquin River at times when more is carried than is actually put to economic use. This proposition does not present a question of first impression where the action of this court would be free. The proposition has been decided repeatedly against appellants’ contention, and for the reasons given in the foregoing consideration those decisions must be adhered to and this appeal denied.
The portion of the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Angellotti, J., Sloss, J., and Melvin, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co. S.F. No. 4814. · 1910-02-04
- Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co. Sac. No. 1411. · 1909-01-02