Westphal v. Finkler

California Court of Appeal

Westphal v. Finkler

27 Cal. App. 794

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 5, 1915

DocketCiv. No. 1335

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Cal. App. 794 (Westphal v. Finkler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Westphal v. Finkler, 27 Cal. App. 794 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

CHIPMAN, P. J.

By stipulation this case was heard and decided in the lower court upon the evidence submitted in Robertson v. Finkler. The questions involved in Robertson v. Finkler (Civ. No. 1334), ante, p. 322, [149 Pac. 784] this day decided, are identical with the questions raised in this ease and our decision in that case is determinative of this case Westphal’s interest in Rock Spring was one-sixth and is not disputed. He claimed, however, as did Robertson, that the water developed above the spring was part of the water of the spring. He failed, as did Robertson, in establishing his contention.

Upon the authority of the decision in Robertson v. Finkler, the judgment is affirmed.

Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 2, 1915.

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

CHIPMAN, P. J.

By stipulation this case was heard and decided in the lower court upon the evidence submitted in Robertson v. Finkler. The questions involved in Robertson v. Finkler (Civ. No. 1334), ante, p. 322, [149 Pac. 784] this day decided, are identical with the questions raised in this ease and our decision in that case is determinative of this case Westphal’s interest in Rock Spring was one-sixth and is not disputed. He claimed, however, as did Robertson, that the water developed above the spring was part of the water of the spring. He failed, as did Robertson, in establishing his contention.

Upon the authority of the decision in Robertson v. Finkler, the judgment is affirmed.

Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 2, 1915.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Cal. App. 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westphal-v-finkler-calctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack