Rose

Rose v. Saunders

Good Law
69 F.2d 339·1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3536
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 28, 1934Nos. 7206, 7207California2,385 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

These two actions are identical, except that in ease No. 7207 the Calaveras Water Users’ Association is the sole defendant, and in ease No. 7206 there are 105 defendants. In view of the fact that there is no distinction between the two cases, we will refer to them as one, and to the parties as appellant and appellees, without attempting to distinguish between the two actions.

The suit is in the nature of an action to quiet title by the plaintiff, who claims to be the tenant in common, owning an undivided one-half interest in all the properties described in the complaint. The property, which is described in detail in the complaint, may be briefly described as certain water rights in the North fork of the Stanislaus river in An- *340 geles creek and in Highland creek, four reservoirs, certain tunnel's, conduits, ditches, and hydroelectric power plants, and a municipal distributing plant in the city of Angeles, county of Calaveras. It is alleged that the Hobart Estate Company, a California corporation, owns the other undivided one-half interest in the property, and that the eoten-ants are in peaceable possession and control of the property; that the properties are used in the public…

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.