California Supreme Court, 1884

Wilcox v. Hausch

California Supreme Court · Decided January 22, 1884

64 Cal. 461; 3 P. 108; 1884 Cal. LEXIS 395

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Miller v. Wheeler (Wash. 1909)
Herriman Irrigation Co. v. Keel (Utah 1902)
Malad Valley Irrigating Co. v. Campbell (Idaho 1888)
Herriman Irrigation Co. v. Butterfield Mining & Milling Co. (Utah 1899)
Paige v. Rocky Ford Canal & Irrigation Co. (Cal. 1890)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

was evidence to sustain the findings of the court.

If it be conceded that as against a riparian owner below, a person not such may turn into a natural stream water which would not naturally flow therein, and again divert the quantity of water which he led to the stream, the fact that he has conducted some water to it will not authorize him to divert all the water of the stream; and it is for him who has thus interfered *462with the natural flow to show that he has not taken from the stream more water than he led to it. Otherwise the plaintiff, riparian proprietor, is entitled to an injunction prohibiting the diversion of any water.

Judgment and order affirmed..

Hearing in Bank denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.