Barton

Barton v. Pierce

Good Law
131 Cal. App. 33·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 802·20 P.2d 736
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 5, 1933Docket No. 1215.California3,064 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Campbell, J.

This action was commenced by respondents to establish the ownership of all the parties to this action in and to a certain ditch and water rights, which ditch, known herein as the “Lovelace” or “Brundage” ditch, leads out of the North Fork of the Kaweah •River in Tulare County, California. By their complaint respondents claim a three-quarter ownership or interest in said ditch and water rights. From a judgment in favor of respondents appellants have taken this appeal. The cause was tried by the court without a jury and written findings were filed.

In their briefs appellants set out two grounds for reversal: (1) The action should have been dismissed for want of prosecution; (2) The evidence establishes a prior water right vested in appellants and fails to support the findings of the trial court.

1. The following facts are shown by the record: The complaint was filed August 9, 1924. On October 1, 1924, appellants herein duly served and filed their answer and cross-complaint and plaintiffs served and filed their answer to said cross-complaint January 26, 1925. Thereafter the action was tried on the eighth and ninth days of July, 1925, before the late Honorable W. B. Wallace, Judge…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.