Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. People ex rel. McPhee & McGinnity

Colorado Court of Appeals

Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. People ex rel. McPhee & McGinnity

8 Colo. App. 260

DecidedApril 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Colo. App. 260 (Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. People ex rel. McPhee & McGinnity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. People ex rel. McPhee & McGinnity, 8 Colo. App. 260 (Colo. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Bissell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case pertains to another part of the same section of land involved in the preceding suit of The Farmers High Line Canal and Reservoir Company v. The People ex rel. Standart, ante, p. 246, and is an attempt to enforce, on behalf of McPhee & McGinnity, a water right acquired, if at all, under and by virtue of the Bomberger contract, which is set out at length and referred to in that opinion. This case and the preceding one were tried together, and by stipulation and under the order of the court the evidence taken was applied to both. On the conclusion of the testimony, the court entered a like judgment in this case, and decreed the petitioner entitled to the amount of water which he claimed under that contract.

[261]*261For the reasons expressed in the foregoing opinion, we conclude the petitioner was not entitled to his writ, or to the judgment which he obtained, which must therefore be reversed.

Reversed.

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

Bissell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case pertains to another part of the same section of land involved in the preceding suit of The Farmers High Line Canal and Reservoir Company v. The People ex rel. Standart, ante, p. 246, and is an attempt to enforce, on behalf of McPhee & McGinnity, a water right acquired, if at all, under and by virtue of the Bomberger contract, which is set out at length and referred to in that opinion. This case and the preceding one were tried together, and by stipulation and under the order of the court the evidence taken was applied to both. On the conclusion of the testimony, the court entered a like judgment in this case, and decreed the petitioner entitled to the amount of water which he claimed under that contract.

[261]*261For the reasons expressed in the foregoing opinion, we conclude the petitioner was not entitled to his writ, or to the judgment which he obtained, which must therefore be reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Colo. App. 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-high-line-canal-reservoir-co-v-people-ex-rel-mcphee-coloctapp-1896.