Hargrave v. Cook
Citations
- 108 Cal. 72
- 41 P. 18
- 1895 Cal. LEXIS 824
Syllabus
<p>Riparian Rights — Ownership — Reasonable Use—Irrigation. — The right of a riparian proprietor to the waters of a stream flowing through or along his land is not a right of ownership in or to the waters, but is a usufructuary right, including a right to make a reasonable use of a reasonable quantity for irrigation, returning the surplus to the natural channel, that it may flow on in the accustomed mode to the lands below.</p> <p>Id.—Effect of Nonuser — Loss of Rights.—None of the rights of a riparian proprietor to put the water to legitimate uses can be lost by mere nonuser, but they are attached to the soil and pass with it, and may be lost by grant, condemnation, or prescription.</p> <p>Id.—Effect of Diversion Below Riparian Owner — Estoppel.—An upper riparian owner has no concern with any. use or diversion of the water after it has passed his laud, and none of his rights can be impaired thereby, and the fact that such owner never attempted to interfere with a diversion of the water below his land is immaterial, and can raise no estoppel against him.</p> <p>Id.—Prescriptive Right to Divert Water — Acquiescence—Absence of Cause of Action.—There can be no prescriptive right to divert the water of a stream, as against an upper riparian proprietor, at a point below his land by reason of his long acquiescence in such diversion . and use; and there can be no title by prescription where the acts constituting the alleged adverse use are not of such a nature as to give a cause of action in favor of the person against whom the acts are performed.</p> <p>Id.—Rights of Prior Appropriator — Change of Use.—As between appropriators of water, an appropriator who is prior in time and superior in location acquiies the ownership of water used for proper objects, with the right to change the place and purpose of use, so long as the change does not injuriously affect the rights of subsequent appropriators.</p> <p>Id.—Basement in Private Land—Change of Point of Diversion.—An appropri
Judges: Henshaw
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State Water Resources Control Board CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2006-02-09· cited 142×
- Nevada Ditch Co. v. BennettOregon Supreme Court· 1896-06-29· cited 78×
- City of Los Angeles v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court· 1943-10-14· cited 49×
- Rank v. (Krug) United StatesS.D. California· 1956-07-11· cited 46×
- United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility DistrictS.D. California· 1958-08-08· cited 20×
- State v. AndersonWashington Supreme Court· 1924-03-19· cited 20×
- Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-02-06· cited 17×
- Anderson v. BassmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California· 1905-08-12· cited 11×
- Murphy Slough Assn. v. AvilaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1972-09-07· cited 8×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-04-26· cited 265×
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-08-04· cited 64×
- Hanson v. McCueCalifornia Supreme Court· 1871-10-15· cited 46×
- Anaheim Water Co. v. Semi-Tropic Water Co.California Supreme Court· 1883-09-27· cited 40×
- Davis v. GaleCalifornia Supreme Court· 1867-07-01· cited 37×
- Lakeside Ditch Co. v. CraneCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-08-05· cited 31×
- Ramelli v. IrishCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-09-20· cited 26×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.