City of Los Angeles v. Baldwin

California Supreme Court

City of Los Angeles v. Baldwin

53 Cal. 469

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1879

DocketNo. 6040

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 53 Cal. 469 (City of Los Angeles v. Baldwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Los Angeles v. Baldwin, 53 Cal. 469 (Cal. 1879).

Pincite

Opinions

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

1. The claim set up by the city in this action—that the city is the owner of the corpus of the water in the Los Angeles Diver—finds no support in the evidence.

2. Nor does the fact that the city is a lower riparian proprietor entitle her to judgment in her favor. The defendants arc upper riparian proprietors on the same stream. In the former action between these parties, it was adjudged that the diversion of the water by the defendants, to the extent and in the manner [470]*470in which they then diverted it, was such as, being riparian proprietors, they might lawfully make. The conditions do not appear to be different now from what they then were. The diversion by the defendants is the same now as then, and while these conditions continue unchanged the judgment rendered in the former action operates as a bar between the parties here.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

1. The claim set up by the city in this action—that the city is the owner of the corpus of the water in the Los Angeles Diver—finds no support in the evidence.

2. Nor does the fact that the city is a lower riparian proprietor entitle her to judgment in her favor. The defendants arc upper riparian proprietors on the same stream. In the former action between these parties, it was adjudged that the diversion of the water by the defendants, to the extent and in the manner [470]*470in which they then diverted it, was such as, being riparian proprietors, they might lawfully make. The conditions do not appear to be different now from what they then were. The diversion by the defendants is the same now as then, and while these conditions continue unchanged the judgment rendered in the former action operates as a bar between the parties here.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Cal. 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-los-angeles-v-baldwin-cal-1879.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack