Leigh Co. v. Independent Ditch Co. (1857) · DecisionDepot

Leigh Co. v. Independent Ditch Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1857Published

Before: Burnett, Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an allegation of ownership and possession of mining claims is sufficient to establish a right to the use of water in a natural stream, and that such ownership entitles the possessor to sue for the diversion of that water.

Issues

Whether an allegation of ownership and possession of mining claims is sufficient without detailing the particulars of title.
Whether ownership and possession of mining claims confers a right to the use of water flowing in a natural stream.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The allegation that the plaintiffs were the owners, and in the possession of the mining-claims, was sufficient, without setting out any of the particulars of their title.”

“And the ownership and possession of the claims, drew to them the right to the use of the water flowing in the natural channel of the stream.”

Synopsis

A complaint, alleging that plaintiffs are the owners, and in possession of certain mining-claims on a certain stream, and are entitled to the natural flow of the waters of the stream, which had been diverted to their injury by defendants, sets forth a sufficient cause of action.

It is not necessary that the complaint should further allege an appropriation of the water, or an ownership thereof.

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring. The demurrer was properly overruled. The allegation that the plaintiffs were the owners, and in the possession of the mining-claims, was sufficient, without setting out any of the particulars of their title. And the ownership and possession of the claims, drew to them the right to the use of the water flowing in the natural channel of the stream. The diversion of the water was, therefore, an injury to the plaintiffs, for which they could sue. The principle involved in - this case, was expressly decided by this Court, in the case of Crandall and others v. [324]Woods and others, July, 1857. In that ease it was said: “ One who locates upon public lands with the view of appropriating them to his own use, becomes the absolute owner thereof, as against every one but the government, and is entitled to all the privileges and incidents which appertain to the soil, subject to the single exception of rights antecodentlv acquired.”

Judgment affirmed.

Leigh Co. v. Independent Ditch Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief