Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.

169 Cal. 447
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 169 Cal. 415
California Supreme Court·Decided December 20, 1913·No. S. F. No. 6085·Published

Opinion

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.

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

Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co., 169 Cal. 447 (Cal. 1913).

169 Cal. 447 (Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co.
107 P. 115 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.
99 P. 502 (California Supreme Court, 1909)