Bigger v. Empire Water & Power Co.

Eighth Circuit

Bigger v. Empire Water & Power Co.

205 F. 130, 123 C.C.A. 362, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1913

DocketNo. 3,516

StatusPublished

This text of 205 F. 130 (Bigger v. Empire Water & Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bigger v. Empire Water & Power Co., 205 F. 130, 123 C.C.A. 362, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417 (8th Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

Leander A. Bigger, the owner of a lot or piece of ground on Cascade creek in Colorado, sued the Empire Water & ’Power Company and its officers to enjoin them from diverting the waters of that stream to a manufacturing purpose. He asserted the right of a riparian owner as at common law. The trial court dismissed his bill on the merits. The question presented by. Ms appeal has been disposed of adversely to his contention in the case of the Cascade Town Company, 205 Fed. 123, just decided, and therefore it need not be again discussed here. But as an owner of property in that locality he enjoys through the Town Company a participation in its water rights under the laws of Colorado. He should be left free to protect himself against deprivation of them, should it cease to protect him.

The decree dismissing his hill is therefore modified to be without prejudice, and as so modified it is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

Leander A. Bigger, the owner of a lot or piece of ground on Cascade creek in Colorado, sued the Empire Water & ’Power Company and its officers to enjoin them from diverting the waters of that stream to a manufacturing purpose. He asserted the right of a riparian owner as at common law. The trial court dismissed his bill on the merits. The question presented by. Ms appeal has been disposed of adversely to his contention in the case of the Cascade Town Company, 205 Fed. 123, just decided, and therefore it need not be again discussed here. But as an owner of property in that locality he enjoys through the Town Company a participation in its water rights under the laws of Colorado. He should be left free to protect himself against deprivation of them, should it cease to protect him.

The decree dismissing his hill is therefore modified to be without prejudice, and as so modified it is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F. 130, 123 C.C.A. 362, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bigger-v-empire-water-power-co-ca8-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack