Skip to main content
· 9/10/1918

Willits Water & Power Co. v. Landrum

Citations

  • 38 Cal. App. 160

Syllabus

<p>Water and Water Bights—Adverse or Permissive Use—Evidence Conelicting-7-Appeal.—Where in an action involving water rights, the evidence upon which the lower court acted was sufficient to show the presence and operation of all the elements of adverse possession, even if it be conceded that there was some evidence that the use was permissive, the most that can he Said is that thereby a conflict was created, and the finding of the trial court on the issue is controlling.</p> <p>Id.—Title by Prescription—Extent op Bight.—Title by prescription, to the use of water, is measured by the manner and extent of the use, and does not attach to something else that may be deemed equivalent.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence—Extent op Use—Finding.—Evidence in a ease involving the right to divert water examined and found to justify the trial court in concluding that the waters of a creek had been appropriated and a certain ditch and flume used by the defendant under such circumstances and in such manner as to justify the inference that the defendant and his predecessors in interest were thereby claiming and assorting that' such privilege was a right appurtenant to their land, and that this use continued for a period longer than that required by statute to create a title by prescription.</p> <p>Id.—Finding and Decree—Finding too Indefinite.—Where in such case the finding of the court was that the defendant and his predecessors had continuously for a stated period, sufficient to establish a prescriptive right, used the waters of a creek to an amount “equal to a continuous flow” of twenty-four hours each day of two and one-half miner’s inches, and the decree awarded the right to divert and use “a continuous flow of 2% inches of water measured under a á-ineh pressure,” jhe court should have found definitely what quantity of water, if any, was thus continuously appropriated.</p> <p>Id.—Finding Unsupported.—Assuming that evidence warranted the conclusion that sixteen inches of water were used on def

Judges: Burnett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.