Griseza

Griseza v. Terwilliger

Good Law
144 Cal. 456·1904 Cal. LEXIS 715·77 P. 1034
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 18, 1904Sac. No. 1083.California2,157 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Plaintiffs allege that they are owners in fee as tenants in common of a certain ditch and the right to take water from Little Shasta River, Siskiyou County, the ditch being commonly known as the Musgrave & Linton Ditch, and of capacity of twelve hundred miner’s inches; that they have for thirty-seven years last past used the water flowing through said ditch to its full capacity when there was abundant water, and at other times six hundred and forty miner’s inches; that defendant claims an interest therein and adverse to plaintiffs; and that during the year 1900 she wrongfully diverted a portion of said waters from said ditch. Elizabeth J. Rohrer, as executrix of her husband’s will, filed a complaint in intervention, alleging that at his death, in 1886, he owned a one-sixth interest in said ditch and water, and that said interest now belongs to his estate. She asked to have the title to this interest quieted against the adverse claims of defendant. There was no demurrer to either complaint, but defendant answered plaintiffs’ complaint (which by stipulation was taken as an answer to the intervention subsequently filed), admitting that plaintiffs owned some interest in the…

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.